Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen
| December 5, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Climate change, Global Warming |
From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:
Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”
The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.
Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.
Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”
- Sarah Palin
168 Responses to Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
StephenB at 162,
Since radical Islam Buddhism, and Darwinism all reject the inherent dignity of the human person, all are, to that extent, unreasonable and incapable of explaining why wanton murder is an evil act.
Many Buddhists would disagree strongly with you, since a major precept of Buddhism is the sanctity of all living creatures.
Further, “Darwinism” or, more accurately, modern evolutionary theory, is a scientific explanation of empirical observations, not a moral system. As Sesame Street says, one of these things is not like the others.
I’ve read your post several times and I still don’t see that you’ve explained how to resolve the differences between these two “absolute” standards of morality.
At best, they can tell the tyrant only that they “prefer” to be treated well, to which the tyrant can say, “I prefer not to treat you well. By your own definition of morality, one preference is as good as another, which means that your preferences are no more valid than my preferences. Since I have more power than you, I choose my own morality which assures me that you should be my slave.
The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: “Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave.”
Follow the logic of subjectivism, skepticism, and relativism all the way through. There are only two options available: The objective moral law or might makes right. Thus, anyone who questions the former accepts the latter by default.
Another way to test these propositions is to try defining morality yourself. I have already provided my definition and expounded on it. If you do go through this exercise, you will find that only two options are available: Objective morality or personal preference.
That is a false dichotomy; many philosophers have defined systems of morality that are not objective or absolute in the sense of existing independent of human minds but that nonetheless are not mere personal preference.
Be that as it may, the core problem with this defense of the existence of an absolute moral standard is that the consequences of not having one, even if they are as dire as you claim, have no bearing on whether or not one exists. We need positive evidence or arguments for its existence.
—-Mustela Nivalis: “The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: “Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave.”
A conversation informed by the natural moral law could not end that way. Only fanaticism uninformed by reason, and the notion that morality doesn’t exist, promotes that kind of response.
Only two possibilities exist: Objective morality or “might makes right.”
—-“That is a false dichotomy; many philosophers have defined systems of morality that are not objective or absolute in the sense of existing independent of human minds but that nonetheless are not mere personal preference.”
Which philosophers did you have in mind? Describe their “system of morality.” Why was it not based on their personal preference?
—-“Be that as it may, the core problem with this defense of the existence of an absolute moral standard is that the consequences of not having one, even if they are as dire as you claim, have no bearing on whether or not one exists. We need positive evidence or arguments for its existence.
Evidence doesn’t lead to the self evident principles of right reason; evidence is interpreted in their light.
Are you prepared to answer my other two questions: What is your definition of morality? Why do you care about this discussion?
Sorry, that should read: Only two possibilities exist: Objective morality or personal preferences, and the latter always leads to “might makes right.” So, ultimately, its Objective morality vs. “Might makes right.”
StephenB at 165,
Mustela Nivalis: “The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: “Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave.”
A conversation informed by the natural moral law could not end that way. Only fanaticism uninformed by reason, and the notion that morality doesn’t exist, promotes that kind of response.
Is “natural moral law” a synonym for “absolute moral standard”? You still haven’t demonstrated how to resolve disagreements over the nature of this moral law or standard. I cannot distinguish between your position and the more simply stated “This is what I believe.”
That’s fine that you believe it, and I probably even share most of your moral standards, but that doesn’t make them absolute. Further, even if they are absolute, you haven’t shown how to demonstrate that.
Evidence doesn’t lead to the self evident principles of right reason; evidence is interpreted in their light.
How do you know that the principles you perceive to be self evident are actually right? If you can’t articulate your position rationally, it really does come down to “This is what I believe.” That’s not a compelling argument.
Are you prepared to answer my other two questions: What is your definition of morality? Why do you care about this discussion?
If by “definition” you mean my moral standard, it’s something I’m working on being able to articulate, hence my participation in discussions like this one. Thank you for sharing my path for a little while.
I find this discussion interesting from a purely intellectual level because I genuinely don’t understand your position and I would like to.
—Mustela Nivalis: “If by “definition” you mean my moral standard, it’s something I’m working on being able to articulate, hence my participation in discussions like this one. Thank you for sharing my path for a little while.”
Peace!