Category Archives: Pseudoscience

Updated: 'Reincarnation of the Reds'

Pseudoscience

“Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can’t be falsified—the kind of ‘theory’ Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, ‘A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,’ of course, ‘non-scientific.’
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey—a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts, and hoots to communicate.”
More about the environmental animists and their media enablers, in my new WorldNetDaily column, “Reincarnation of the Reds.”

Updated: This via Drudge: “Record snowfall buries Anchorage, Alaska.” To which the environmental animist will reply that “every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is… a consequence of that warming or proof of it.” As I said, theirs is a theory that can’t be disproved, which is why it’s junk science.

Updated: ‘Reincarnation of the Reds’

Pseudoscience

“Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can’t be falsified—the kind of ‘theory’ Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, ‘A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,’ of course, ‘non-scientific.’
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey—a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts, and hoots to communicate.”
More about the environmental animists and their media enablers, in my new WorldNetDaily column, “Reincarnation of the Reds.”

Updated: This via Drudge: “Record snowfall buries Anchorage, Alaska.” To which the environmental animist will reply that “every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is… a consequence of that warming or proof of it.” As I said, theirs is a theory that can’t be disproved, which is why it’s junk science.

Updated Again: Animals Gone Wild

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Pseudoscience

“While Western man works to rid himself of the most basic ethical instincts, like defending his kinfolk, animals remain true to their nature. Wild beasts intuit that their teeth and talons are meant for tearing flesh–any flesh, the easier the better. It makes perfect animal sense to attack a thing that is docile, slow, and passive, like the not-so sapient Homo sapiens…

The handful of honest experts left admits that attacks are up because politically correct policies have bred fearless critters. The Pavlovian response to aversive treatment has been bred out of the wild animal population. Mary Zeiss Stange, author of Woman the Hunter, says that hunting ultimately has less to do with killing than with instilling fear in animals that have placed us on their menu. If animal rights activists possessed a dog’s smarts, they’d understand the perils of such a program, for an unafraid animal is a dangerous animal; an unafraid human an endangered fool…”

Read the rest of my new column, “Animals Gone Wild,” on The American Spectator. Comments are, as always, welcome.

Update: There are some very amusing and poignant letters-to-the-editor on The American Spectator about “Animals Gone Wild.” The section is titled “Wolves and Alligators,” and everyone is pretty pissed off.

I like R. Trotter’s missive: “A big paws up to Ilana Mercer’s fine article. Watch just about any nature documentary and much of it is dedicated to telling us simpletons that though many of us are afraid of snakes, sharks, bears, etc., in reality humans pose a greater threat to the critters than they do to us. While that is, at best, arguable, and only so on a statistical and species-by-species basis, it is based upon the flawed premise that the life of a human and, say, a black widow spider, are equivalent…”

Sam Karnick has an interesting comment at Karnick On Culture. Here’s my reply.

Updated Again: Animals Gone Wild has really struck a chord. Writing for the British Spiked Online, Josie Appleton has referenced my essay. As I told her, it’s refreshing to meet a writer who is both professional and ethical as to reference a quote. I do it, but most here don’t:

Hi,
A friend sent your piece on wild animals to me as I was just about to publish a piece on the same subject (hooked off the wild boar rampage in Germany), so I included a couple of your examples. Thanks for a good article.
‘BEWARE OF THE BOARS: From Bavaria to South Africa, rampaging animals are bringing towns to a standstill. Why don’t we just shoot them?’
All the best
Josie Appleton
Convenor, Manifesto Club ((www.manifestoclub.com)

Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design

Christianity, Pseudoscience, Reason, Religion, Science

C-Span broadcast a book forum at the Cato Institute, featuring the author Michael Shermer, Director of the Skeptics Society, with comments by Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Wells is also the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. That tells you all you need to know about his position.

It’s probably safe to say that I come down on Shermer’s side. I’ve always admired his work. However, evolution is one topic I’m agnostic about. Joy! I love a good intellectual debate (although this one was a tad short)—all the more so when I have no dog in the fight.

Both men are extremely bright and cordial. I question Wells’ inability to come up with a theory that’ll fill the lacunae he finds in Darwinism. He claims he is not obliged to fill in the gaps. My knowledge of the theory of science is limited, so I can’t tell you whether the onus is on him to furnish a competing, overarching explanation.