Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
sasquatch2 @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:25 pm
Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
By Tim Thorstenson
$1:
As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a “moral” matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you “cannot legislate morality”. Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the “lens” through which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper context. Morality tells them “what to make of the facts”.
This sounds a little abstract, so consider a practical example:
Let us assume that Bob has just shot George dead with a shotgun and that this is an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Now, one could use a moral argument to suggest that the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense. Alternately, one could also use a moral argument to insist that the shooting was cold-blooded murder. But one cannot use a moral argument to insist that the shooting simply did not happen. In other words, moral considerations influence how we view the facts and can be used to argue “what we should make of the facts”, but they cannot be used to literally change or deny the facts. Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual question, rather than a moral one.
Now consider, in contrast, how “morality” is being employed by global warming advocates like Al Gore:
For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates.
It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of “good” people to reject these opinions on this “moral” basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing. Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe otherwise, then I am “immoral”.
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this “ultimate evil” becomes “acceptable strategy” if the cause is justified. This is “liberal moral relativism” taken to a whole new level.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a “moral” matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you “cannot legislate morality”. Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the “lens” through which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper context. Morality tells them “what to make of the facts”.
This sounds a little abstract, so consider a practical example:
Let us assume that Bob has just shot George dead with a shotgun and that this is an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Now, one could use a moral argument to suggest that the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense. Alternately, one could also use a moral argument to insist that the shooting was cold-blooded murder. But one cannot use a moral argument to insist that the shooting simply did not happen. In other words, moral considerations influence how we view the facts and can be used to argue “what we should make of the facts”, but they cannot be used to literally change or deny the facts. Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual question, rather than a moral one.
Now consider, in contrast, how “morality” is being employed by global warming advocates like Al Gore:
For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates.
It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of “good” people to reject these opinions on this “moral” basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing. Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe otherwise, then I am “immoral”.
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this “ultimate evil” becomes “acceptable strategy” if the cause is justified. This is “liberal moral relativism” taken to a whole new level.
Blue_Nose @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:39 am
I agree, insofar as I've heard numerous times the climate change proponents bolster their arguments with comments on our wasteful society and how it "can't hurt" to reduce our consumption.
The political issue has now gotten out of control, but it's not limited to the chicken-little arguments, but the equally to the irrational backlash we're seeing regularly.
"It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates." - precisely the same can be said of global warming deniers. Neither camp has expressed interest in the facts, resorting instead to slandering researchers from the 'other side' as well as their evidence.
Closing the debate in either case isn't in anyone's best interest, yet some here still insist their personal verdict is final.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:26 pm
At least there is a debate now. At one time we were hearing the facts are in, the science is done. At least we know now that's not true.
dgthe3 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:46 pm
It became a moral issue because we now have the potential to change the world in a way never before seen. That may or may not be a good thing. So the moral question is about what do we do if the world is changing?
sasquatch2 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:06 pm
dgthe3 Posted:
$1:
It became a moral issue because we now have the potential to change the world in a way never before seen. That may or may not be a good thing. So the moral question is about what do we do if the world is changing?
It became a moral issue when folks like yourself make pronouncements like this----based more on faith than facts. It was likely adopted by the AGW camp out of desperation----people react to fear---and a bloody good guilt trip.
Zipperfish @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:10 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
By Tim Thorstenson
By Tim Thorstenson
$1:
As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a “moral” matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you “cannot legislate morality”. Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the “lens” through which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper context. Morality tells them “what to make of the facts”.
This sounds a little abstract, so consider a practical example:
Let us assume that Bob has just shot George dead with a shotgun and that this is an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Now, one could use a moral argument to suggest that the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense. Alternately, one could also use a moral argument to insist that the shooting was cold-blooded murder. But one cannot use a moral argument to insist that the shooting simply did not happen. In other words, moral considerations influence how we view the facts and can be used to argue “what we should make of the facts”, but they cannot be used to literally change or deny the facts. Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual question, rather than a moral one.
Now consider, in contrast, how “morality” is being employed by global warming advocates like Al Gore:
For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates.
It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of “good” people to reject these opinions on this “moral” basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing. Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe otherwise, then I am “immoral”.
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this “ultimate evil” becomes “acceptable strategy” if the cause is justified. This is “liberal moral relativism” taken to a whole new level.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a “moral” matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you “cannot legislate morality”. Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the “lens” through which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper context. Morality tells them “what to make of the facts”.
This sounds a little abstract, so consider a practical example:
Let us assume that Bob has just shot George dead with a shotgun and that this is an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Now, one could use a moral argument to suggest that the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense. Alternately, one could also use a moral argument to insist that the shooting was cold-blooded murder. But one cannot use a moral argument to insist that the shooting simply did not happen. In other words, moral considerations influence how we view the facts and can be used to argue “what we should make of the facts”, but they cannot be used to literally change or deny the facts. Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual question, rather than a moral one.
Now consider, in contrast, how “morality” is being employed by global warming advocates like Al Gore:
For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates.
It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of “good” people to reject these opinions on this “moral” basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing. Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe otherwise, then I am “immoral”.
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this “ultimate evil” becomes “acceptable strategy” if the cause is justified. This is “liberal moral relativism” taken to a whole new level.
Thank you, thakn you, thank you, Sasquatch. Finally someone wiht some common sense. This guy clearly says that he is a scientist. NO CONSENSUS. HOCKEY PUCKS!!!!! The fact is that glaobla warmign is factually false and this guy is a scientists and proves it.
These scientists with there "facts" think they know it all. Well science is just a load of liberal crap. Except for this scientist. He rocks. Vote Conservative. HOCKEY PUCKS.
dgthe3 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:40 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
dgthe3 Posted:
It became a moral issue when folks like yourself make pronouncements like this----based more on faith than facts. It was likely adopted by the AGW camp out of desperation----people react to fear---and a bloody good guilt trip.
$1:
It became a moral issue because we now have the potential to change the world in a way never before seen. That may or may not be a good thing. So the moral question is about what do we do if the world is changing?
It became a moral issue when folks like yourself make pronouncements like this----based more on faith than facts. It was likely adopted by the AGW camp out of desperation----people react to fear---and a bloody good guilt trip.
To what do you take issue with? our potential to make changes in the worlds climate? Or is it the part about what do we do if the world is changing being the moral question? Or is it the notion that having the potential to change the climate of the world is possibly a good thing? Please tell me what it was that I said which was based on faith rather than fact. I would understand if my post was
$1:
It became a moral issue because we now are changing the world in a way never before seen. That is a very bad thing. So the moral question is what do we do since the world is changing because of us?
Can you notice how small differences in wording change things completly?
sandorski @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:11 pm
When did Personal Responsibility become Pass the Buck?
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
romanP @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:33 pm
sandorski sandorski:
When did Personal Responsibility become Pass the Buck?
When Personal Responsibility became a cynical statement of "I don't think I should care about anyone but myself, even if it hurts everyone else. If it doesn't have a direct, spontaneous effect on me, I don't care." instead of a question asking "how does what I do affect the people and the world around me?"
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:36 pm
Well, politicizing a theory of catastrophic CO2 forced warming is immoral. It's immoral, because there's no real scientific proof it exists. There's only computer models. So creating a climate of fear, scaring kids with it, depriving developing countries of electricity, taxing the already over-taxed all in a political power grab is immoral.
So yeah, I guess maybe it is a moral matter.
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Closing the (global warming) debate in either case isn't in anyone's best interest
On this much I'll agree.
![[BB]](./images/smilies/beers.gif "Beers")
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:45 pm
sandorski sandorski:
When did Personal Responsibility become Pass the Buck?
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
Part of the debate is over whether or not what has been reportedly observed is a natural process or not. We are not necessarily causing it and, upon examination, most AGW proponents will not say that we're necessarily causing it. Among AGW proponents there is a sub-debate over how much humanity might be contributing to a natural process.
The further question then becomes that if this is a natural process that, yes, we might be contributing to, do we have a responsibility just to mitigate our own contribution to that natural process or are we supposed to go further and prevent a natural process from proceeding?
Do we have a moral right to control the climate?
Because that is where this discussion is ultimately headed.
Zipperfish @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:51 pm
sandorski sandorski:
When did Personal Responsibility become Pass the Buck?
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
The why does Al Gore have a big house? HOCKEY PUCKS!!!!!!! You scientists and your "facts." What warming? The earth's not getting warmer. And besides it's a good thing that it's getting warmer. The graphs are just illusions. The MSM and the liberal scientists are just trying to scare people with these "facts" and extract money so that Al Gore can buy a bigger house.
JOKLHAUPS!!!!!
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:02 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
sandorski sandorski:
When did Personal Responsibility become Pass the Buck?
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
We're causing it, we're Responsible.
Part of the debate is over whether or not what has been reportedly observed is a natural process or not. We are not necessarily causing it and, upon examination, most AGW proponents will not say that we're necessarily causing it. Among AGW proponents there is a sub-debate over how much humanity might be contributing to a natural process.
The further question then becomes that if this is a natural process that, yes, we might be contributing to, do we have a responsibility just to mitigate our own contribution to that natural process or are we supposed to go further and prevent a natural process from proceeding?
Do we have a moral right to control the climate?
Because that is where this discussion is ultimately headed.
Interesting question. A tough call.
If we aren't causing global warming then should we prevent it?
If we are causing it then shouldn't we stop it?
I think humanities impact has long ago rendered that question almost academic. Even if we eliminate global warming we have the question of our pollution, land usage, paving over loads of fertile land ........
To be honest I think we are the stewards of starship earth and have certain responsibilities.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:04 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The why does Al Gore have a big house? HOCKEY PUCKS!!!!!!! You scientists and your "facts." What warming? The earth's not getting warmer. And besides it's a good thing that it's getting warmer. The graphs are just illusions. The MSM and the liberal scientists are just trying to scare people with these "facts" and extract money so that Al Gore can buy a bigger house.
JOKLHAUPS!!!!!
You must not say these things skeptic, dog. We are the science. There is no science, but our science. Ours is "The Science". Our graphs are Holy icons, especially the ones that only go to 2001. You must not notice when we omit data. The little ice age doesn't matter. Any warming from that period is unacceptable. The medieval warm period did not exist. Pay no attention to the man behind the screen.
Achtung. Heil Al!