I wonder if Ken is aware that LINUX is part of the global conspiracy (run by Jews).

James

So you are saying that claims the North Pole will be completely gone in two days is “actual science”?

As for the LDS Church indoctrinating. It’s all right for religions to indoctrinate because that is what they are there for. It’s kind of like accusing the pontiff of pontificating.

The huge difference is that religions indoctrinate children with the blessing of their parents. It is a basic human right for parents to instruct their own children in religious matters.

So what’s with this “Algore” thing Ken has going on? Is that supposed to be some dig at Gore? Is it intended to be some clever play on words? Or am I to suppose that Ken just doesn’t know Gore’s name? I don’t get, but then again, I don’t know the secret conservative handshake either.

Great post Don!

Cliff

Like all predictions, thay can be based on science but not even weather scientists ever claim 95% accuracy like the IPCC does because they know it hurts their credibility when they are wrong.

Making absolute statements hurts your credibility and actually weakens an argument because absolute statements are easier to discredit than qualified statements.

Warmers have painted themselves into a corner because they have made such preposterous statements that even if the Earth is warming and even if it is human caused they will still lose all credibility if their catastrophic scenarios do not pan out.

In fact these predictions are not based on science at all because there is no way to truly quantify, validate, and reproduce the predictions. Their predictions are just that, possible outcomes among many possible outcomes.

While we’re on the subject of indoctrination:

Lord, take me now!

Larry, Rico–

I believe “sound science” is an example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Wikipedia explains it here. I’m not convinced, however, that Ken is using it in a fallacious way–yet.

Ken–

Of course the show isn’t based on “sound science.” Of course they’re not claiming that the North Pole could melt in two days. It’s a kids’ show, employing familiar themes to present a dire scenario. How many shows present unrealistic, ridiculous, or just plain silly circumstances centered around “saving Christmas”?

I’m sure you’ve seen the Year Without a Santa Clause, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and the Santa Clause 2. What do you have to say about their forms of “indoctrination?”

In the first case, such forms include nature-worship and polytheism; in the second, the pseudo-science of the Abominable Snowman and anti-consumerism (the Island of Misfit Toys); in the third, the necessity of Santa Claus to be married ignores that there’s no evidence that he, a Catholic bishop, ever was married. All three cases include the employ of “Christmas magic”: flying reindeer, glowing noses, animation of objects, and the like. Have you sent letters notifying the companies and stations which make and play such movies of your personal (and wholly inconsequential) disapproval? Have you written to Disney about Wall-E (anti-capitalism = communism) and the rerelease of Bambi (anti-hunting = anti-gun rights), to Fox about Fern Gully (environmental awareness = enviroterrorism), and Cartoon Network about the Powerpuff Girls (girl power = feminazism)?

It seems to me that you’re expecting children to have a degree of impressionability regarding a political notion that most parents wouldn’t expect them to have about other, more familiar notions. This is odd, especially because children tend to be more guilty of “magical thinking” than adults, which would make them more susceptible to beliefs based in the imagination (such as Santa Claus’ non-involvement meaning that there won’t be any Christmas) than scientific theories (such as global warming).

Your response would be similar to me getting outraged because a children’s show says that the North Pole is saved forever (I’m sure it has been said in one form or another, I just have no examples at present). “What! Saved forever? What about global warming??? This show is junk science, and I won’t stand for it! Kids, go take a bath and clean off the filth of conservative propaganda! I’m writing a letter.”

Nevertheless, I believe it’s your right and responsibility to safeguard your childrens’ minds as you see fit. But writing a letter to the company? Must companies agree with your scientific perspectives to deserve your patronage? If you don’t want them to watch it, don’t let them watch it. There are much more dangerous forms of indoctrination than a theory that encourages us to recycle and drive less, such as TV commercials, for a start, which encourage consumption binges of every kind. Come on, Ken.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Ken:

Is there a Santa Claus on Kolob? Your parsing acceptable and unacceptable bases for indoctrination of children is quite entertaining.

Real scientists aren’t that far different from real judges. Both must be strict observers of fact and never an advocate of any viewpoint. Both have laws they must strictly adhere to. Neither should ever try and shape the facts to fit their preconceived notions. both must never apply any kind of political agenda to their work. Both must allow for vigorous debate and cross examination of all facts. Neither must attempt to silence or intimidate any side of the debate. Both must allow their findings to be challenged even after the fact and change course on a dime when proven wrong even if it goes against their own self interests.

When scientists and judges allow politics to enter in they cease to become their respective professions and instead become politicians and activists. They become a greater threat to our freedom and republic than any external force.

Where judges and scientists differ is in the human factor. While scientists must at all times maintain a dispassionate fidelity to facts, judges are obligated to balance the laws of justice and mercy. During the guilt and innocence phase in criminal matters justice must play the central role but during the sentencing phase they do have the leeway to take all the contributing human factors into account.

Cliff–

I agree with cav and Larry. And I warn you–if you don’t give us more comments per page, I’ll have to make my posts even longer!

Ken–

Those are good observations on scientists and judges. I would like to point out, however, that “the human factor” cannot exist without the imposition of viewpoint. Likewise, the creation of scientific theory frequently necessarily follows the injection of viewpoint into gathered facts. Many of the theories by which we operate today derive from specific philosophical viewpoints. Science, for example, tends to be positivist in its criteria for the creation of theories.

I don’t believe, as you seem to, that global warming theory is derived so strongly from the politics of the scientists; perhaps the politics followed the theory. Considering the grand implications of global warming theory, it would be natural that any recommendations on the part of the scientists would be perceived in a political light, whether they were intended to be or not. Consider prior scientific revelations, such as that the world was round. To this day, flat-earthers claim that “round earth science” is a political and cultural tool, and that scientists have infected real geo-science and astrophysics with their own perspectives and agenda. You would certainly not agree with them, would you? Consider that you might be the “flat earther” of global warming. I, of course, in turn, must consider that I may be the “flat earther” of the theory that considers that the world is beyond human harm. There are holes in that position, however, which I must expound upon:

Chiefly, we have to suppose that the injection of massive amounts of CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere would have some effect, especially in light of the historical way that climate change has coincided with atmospheric content. At present, a CO2-temperature trend appears to exist. Do you have an alternative?

Secondly, it is clear that the earth (at least in the context of a livable climate) is NOT beyond human harm. The explosion of all nuclear devices on earth would have a quite severe effect, no? What other ways may we express our power to harm the earth beyond livability?

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Cliff:

Thanks, but I would still prefer everything on one page. Sometimes the blog takes a long time to load, but, (for me anyway), I’ve had a problem with pages loading for a few months now all over the internet. A lot of times, I thought a video had been blocked at YouTube, but if I click on reload page it comes up. Same with this blog.

Take it easy cav!

LOL!

Try helping your kids understand that, in an egalitarian society, all people (and animals) receive equal opportunity. No longer held down by the (hu)man, dinosaurs rose to their full potential.