WorldNetDaily Links Global Warming and “Darwinism”

WE HAVE previously written about WorldNetDaily, most recently here: Suicide Blamed on Biology Class and Dawkins’ Book, where we described them as “one of the worst practitioners of journalism that ever existed, or that ever could exist.” We took a well-deserved poke at them earlier in this article: WorldNetDaily — Worthless Creationist Rag!

Your Curmudgeon can now report that they remain true to their nature. In the malodorous pages of WorldNetDaily we read The climate change religion.

But first, because of the title of the WorldNetDaily article, we owe our readers an explanation of why we haven’t been writing about global warming. Mostly it’s because we lack sufficient knowledge of climatology, so we keep our opinions to ourselves. Our scientifically un-informed attitude is to be exceedingly skeptical of global warming because of the political company it keeps. That’s not scientific and we know it, which is why we stay out of the debate. But just this once we’ll unload our political thoughts on the issue. You may skip the next four paragraphs if you like. Really. They’re indented for that purpose:

For at least a century there has always been a political faction in the US that seeks to increase governmental control of the economy, to the detriment of property rights and ultimately to the detriment of individual freedom. The justification for such movements varies with the times, like the width of neckties. In rough historical sequence the justification for government growth (aside from war) has morphed from the Marxist forces of history to workers’ rights, the necessities of the Great Depression, worker safety, product safety, consumer protection, environmental pollution, the War on Poverty, racial equality, women’s rights, unemployment, for the children (that’s obscure, but it had its day), social justice, income disparity, et cetera, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

No matter what the justification, or the “crisis” of the day, the solution is always the same — more taxes, more regulations, more controls, and less freedom. With each passing phase in this long process, the adherents to the justification of the day have been fanatically convinced of the righteousness of their cause, unaware that they were mindless pawns in a much larger game.

We may have it wrong this time. Perhaps the world really is gradually warming, and maybe we really are to blame. But in the absence of a solid understanding of the science, we see the global climate “crisis” in the historical context of a long series of dubious justifications for increasing government power at the expense of individual rights. We can’t help but notice how the same old activists who previously took up the cause of earlier “crises” seem to fit so comfortably into ranks of global warming alarmists and “save the planet” activists.

Anyway, if there really is a problem, we don’t like the proffered solutions. We’ve seen them many times before, and they’ve never yet solved any problems. Free markets will deal with the situation far better than governmental bureaucracies. That’s our view of things. But we freely acknowledge that it’s not a scientific opinion.

Now that we’ve gotten that long introduction out of the way, here are some excerpts from the WorldNetDaily article, with bold added by us:

The fervor of the climate-change cataclysm crowd is often rightfully compared with religiosity. As the late Michael Crichton observed, radical environmentalism’s tenets run parallel with foundational Judeo-Christian traditions: “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.” In other words, we have poisoned pristine Earth through technological advance and will ultimately be punished by Mother Nature (rather than Father God) for our brazen selfishness.

Maybe so. That doesn’t strike us as a bad analogy. Here’s more:

Another climate change skeptic, Australian geologist Ian Plimer, recently made direct comparisons between the global warming faithful and “fundamentalist” creationists, “who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational.” This statement gave me pause, because although I largely agree with Plimer’s (and Crichton’s) skepticism of warming “science” and its religious undercurrents, I see little evidence today of Christians becoming “vicious and irrational” about anything – including creation – despite being the targets of a never-ceasing onslaught from the secular establishment in the media, judiciary and academia.

That’s interesting — comparing the fanaticism of “the global warming faithful” to that of creationists. In some cases, that’s undoubtedly true. All movements have fanatical adherents, even if the author of the WorldNetDaily article can’t see it in his own back yard. Let’s read on:

Rather than Christians, the global warming faithful are actually more akin to another religious group that does lash out “viciously and irrationally” to those who challenge their “science”-based views: neo-Darwinian evolutionists.

See? Global warming fanatics are just as vicious, as irrational, as those evil biology professors. Yes, it’s all starting to fall together. Let’s see another excerpt from this brilliant article:

Those who question evolution, even on the basis of scientific evidence, are shunned by Darwin’s disciples, either in court or by their employers and peers.

Yeah, yeah. Poor creationists — they’ve got all that evidence of Noah’s Ark and they just can’t seem to get a break.

One final excerpt:

If left unchallenged, so-called manmade global warming will reside in the cultural consciousness the same way neo-Darwinian macroevolution does: unquestioned, irrefutable and all-defining. It will no longer be simply a theory regarding a certain aspect of the natural world. It will be an entrenched framework through which existence is understood and in relation to which mankind must operate. The next few years may be pivotal in preventing climate alarmism from being firmly established, irrevocably, as the next “scientific” religion.

Perhaps so. And if human-caused global warming really is psudo-science, that would be a tragedy. Just as it would be a tragedy if the nonsense of creationism became entrenched in the schools. But the kooks at WorldNetDaily would be thrilled if that were to happen. As long as it’s their pseudo-science.

Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “WorldNetDaily Links Global Warming and “Darwinism”

  1. I’m not going to try to convince you of the veracity of climate change, we’ve traveled that road once or twice before, but the comparison between AGW and ‘Darwinism’ (whatever that is) is accurate and stems from the same emotion – frustration.

    Climate scientists have done their homework, developed their predictions and run their tests. In their minds, as in mine, AGW is a fact. The frustration of having to correct the same types of arguments, arguments that ten minutes of reading material from NOAA, IPCC, NASA and a number of other organizations not interested in adding restrictions to your freedom, but simply concerned with the scientific understanding of what is happening in our climate, can debunk, becomes overwhelming*. At that point the answer, as we answer to cretards, is shut the f**k up.

    Getting pissed off and not answering questions may be due to some ideological resistance to questioning AGW, but it may also be what I consider much more likely, anger at the stubbornness of the opposition in using frequently falsified arguments.

    The popularizes, the Chicken Littles, and the folks in denial do not represent the science. They are more interested in promoting their idea of what should be done, which means they have to make their opinion look larger than life but in effect makes their opinion look larger than science.

    I think we’ve seen this before.

    *What’s the prize for most confusing run-on sentence?

  2. “I’m not going to try to convince you of the veracity of climate change …”

    I haven’t a clue, Tundra Boy. But Al Gore isn’t the answer.

  3. “In rough historical sequence the justification for government growth (aside from war) has morphed from the Marxist forces of history to workers’ rights, the necessities of the Great Depression, worker safety, product safety, consumer protection, environmental pollution, the War on Poverty, racial equality, women’s rights, unemployment, for the children (that’s obscure, but it had its day), social justice, income disparity…”
    I don’t see any bad there. The ship of State might take a while to change course, but it has got the dual advantages of scale and not needing to make a monetary profit to appeal to the shareholders (instead, the “shareholders” benefit directly…by, y’know, not being exposed to carcinogens at work or having their kids exposed to toxic toys at home, or indirectly, by minimizing the suffering of their neighbours through the social safety net, they don’t have their neighbours break into the house and steal all of their stuff).
    Government is not bad. Bad government is bad. Liberty is fine, but liberty at the expense of one’s neighbour is not (I’m pretty sure that that Jesus fellow had a speech or two about that), which seems to be a detail that the loudest of modern Libertarians seem to miss. Government, ideally, protects me from those bigger, stronger, richer and greedier than me. Granted, I’m Canadian and, therefore, by US standards I’m practically a commie.

    “We’ve seen them many times before, and they’ve never yet solved any problems.”
    Solved perfectly? No. People don’t work like a math equation. On the other hand, big-bad government has done pretty well (in combination with the Courts) for workers’ rights, the necessities of the Great Depression, worker safety, product safety, consumer protection, environmental pollution, racial equality, women’s rights, social justice & income disparity.

    “Free markets will deal with the situation far better than governmental bureaucracies.”
    Because a system that runs on greed and blind consumerism will obviously only do the best for those crushed in their machinery.

    “In other words, we have poisoned pristine Earth through technological advance and will ultimately be punished by Mother Nature (rather than Father God) for our brazen selfishness.”
    Of course, if we’d spurned knowledge, we’d still be crushed by Mother Nature. We’d just be a lot more miserable while she did it.

    “…another religious group that does lash out “viciously and irrationally” to those who challenge their “science”-based views: neo-Darwinian evolutionists.”
    You gotta love “scare” quotes. Gay marriage, for example is light unicorns and sunlight, but so-called gay “marriage” brings to mind darkness and oozing things.

    “…so-called manmade global warming will…”
    Pah! They forgot the scare quotes. I’m not nearly as frightened as I should be.

    The Curmudgeon “But Al Gore isn’t the answer.”
    Gore might not be the answer, but Grease is the word (segue to musical number…)

  4. “On the other hand, big-bad government has done pretty well (in combination with the Courts) for workers’ rights, the necessities of the Great Depression, worker safety, product safety, consumer protection, environmental pollution, racial equality, women’s rights, social justice & income disparity.”

    You think gov’t has done well? In the immortal words of Henny Youngman: “Compared to what?”

  5. Um. Everything else? Despotism, monarchy, theocracy, nudism, etc. I can’t see how laissez fair could do any better.
    Imagine, for example, Exxon replacing the EPA. Hanford, oozing disaster though it is, is nothing compared to unregulated greed, which would end up as nation covered in Love Canals and <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_valdezs” (excuse me, it’s the “Mediterranean” now). Fallible government, for the most part, has nothin’ on unfettered greed.

  6. Wups. Damn you, no preview!

  7. MO (whose comment was automatically delayed because it contained a couple of links) says: “Imagine, for example, Exxon replacing the EPA.”

    Hey, it used to be like that before the EPA existed. But I’ll see that fantasy and raise you one. Imagine the EPA replacing Exxon. Then, when you pull up to the gas station, you get screamed at by some planet-saving bureaucrat, and you’re handed a thousand-page form to fill out.

  8. Pingback: Evolution, Ben Stein, and Global Warming « The Sensuous Curmudgeon

  9. The Curmudgeon Then, when you pull up to the gas station, you get screamed at by some planet-saving bureaucrat, and you’re handed a thousand-page form to fill out.”
    So both extremes are, um, extreme. Think positive: if we stick somewhere in the middle, then at least no one is happy.

  10. MO says: “Think positive: if we stick somewhere in the middle, then at least no one is happy.”

    But, don’t you want me to be happy?

  11. I’ll take everybody being unsatisfied over half being great and life sucking for the other half.
    The mean is an attainable goal. Go mediocrity! Woo!

  12. MO says: “The mean is an attainable goal. Go mediocrity! Woo!”

    Fine. Then send me half of your money.

  13. Sorry, MO. You’re the one who seeks the golden mean. I’m an “A or not-A” kind of guy.

  14. It’s tough sitting in the middle of a false dichotomy. I tried, once, and sprained something “down there”.

  15. Pingback: Evolution, Creationism, and Global Warming « The Sensuous Curmudgeon

  16. Pingback: Global Warming, Creationism & Brain Death « The Sensuous Curmudgeon

  17. Pingback: There is only one term for this « A Man With A Ph.D.