jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the
greenies now. sigh
As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
land fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
traditional construction projects.

.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many
of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all
warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say
that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent
way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works, and
teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an ideal place.
From what I read: "More or less, it exists so that we humans
can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the
universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically
pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly
believe in something, itll happen."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/

The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked
before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going to do it
correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels good, by golly,
it will be good. Ignore those niggling little details like more
waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS good!

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there
never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow.
Thank you for clearing that up.

The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity
and using models that have not been validated to support their
politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our
society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without
question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with
any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting
there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its
models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of
alchemists or astrologers.

Is that "scientism" or the opposite?

It is scientism. Google that word.

I am getting a lot of the latter
from the right wingers.

What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of the
scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists liars is
behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks who are saying "we
should trust them because they are scientists".

Oh and your last sentence is just plain
ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.

Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.