Thursday, January 18, 2007

Jailing Galileo

From Wikipedia... scientific heresy:

  • ...Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

    1. Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
    2. He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
    3. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
From Peaktalk ... scientific heresy:

Re-purposing the concept of hate speech, The Weather Channel’s (TWC) and well-known climatologist Heidi Cullen advocates that:

" ... that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming"

I've never been aware that TV-weathermen and women were 'certified', in fact I have always believed that they were just channeling whatever the meteorological reports said. So, engaging in a debate - scientific or not - is actually some good news. But according to Cullen any debate will have to start at a certain level of undisputed knowledge, hers to be precise:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk
political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.
Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political's just an incorrect statement.

Crushing dissent or manipulating the global warming debate? Probably both.

From ....
Note: Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to renounce his belief in the model of the solar system proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. Galileo had to assert that the Earth stands still, and the sun revolves around it. A famous legend holds that Galileo, after making this public declaration about a motionless Earth, muttered, “Nevertheless, it does move.”
Via David Janes:
I’ve seen countless geology-department professors bury their integrity as they morph from respectable paleontologists or geologists from other specialties, to “climate change” experts, then watch the research funding roll in.


Paul McKeever said...

A person who, lacking any physical evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, believes that global warming is not anthropogenic, is not called a "skeptic". He is called "rational". A "skeptic" is one who believes something in the absense of physical evidence on the ground that "there's no evidence to prove it's false". There being no evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, Heidi Cullen is the skeptic. And, as such, she is not a rational person, and is not - to my mind - qualified to be called a "scientist". Rather, she falls into the category of rain-dancers and people who throw salt over their left shoulder.

DailyBayonet said...

Nicely put, I have a problem with people like Cullen trying to stifle debate. If global warming could be proved with data she'd do it - but it can't and so she reverts to threats and scare-mongering.

Thucydides said...

Of course Heidi Cullen will have to cast a wider net. Archaeological and historical evidence that the European Warm Period (when the climate was somewhat warmer than today) was good for agriculture, trade and human life in general must be suppressed, as well as current evidence from spacecraft that temperatures are raising on other planetary bodies in the Solar System.

Since she and her counterparts are going to attack Meteorology, History, Archaeology, Astronomy and Planetary Science in order to promote the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, they might as well go all out and suppress ALL science. Who knows where the factual evidence might lead if it was rationally and dispassionately applied?

Little Tobacco said...

science not supporting the position of Cullen et al is heresy`... supporting science is redundant. There is no need to look further.