More Evidence You Can’t Trust Evolutionist Logic
The leftist agenda of most science journalists forces them to oppose conservatism, no matter how twisted their logic becomes. Why would anyone trust them about Darwinism?
As everyone knows, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords on June 1. It’s a political story, not a scientific one, except for its dependence on a scientific ‘consensus’ (an oxymoron) that humans are guilty of warming the planet. The president listed various reasons for his decision: (1) it was not a treaty passed by Congress, it was a one-man executive order by the previous administration, so it is non-binding; (2) it punishes Americans, making the USA alone pay up billions of dollars while major polluters (including India and China) have no obligations till 2030; (3) nations taking the US money via carbon credits would have no obligation to prove it will be used for climate mitigation; most likely, the money would end up lining the pockets of dictators, providing no help to the third-world poor; (4) US free-market efforts have strongly decreased pollution over the past years without the need for this accord; (5) the Paris accord would accomplish nothing, because under the most optimistic projections, it would decrease global temperatures by less than two tenths of one degree by 2100. To this he could add that pulling out simply returns America to status quo ante 2016. As such, the decision keeps America in basically the same position it was for most of the Obama administration.
Basically, Trump pulled out because it is a one-sided punishment of America that would cost thousands of jobs, it is a scheme for redistribution of wealth, and it would accomplish nothing. Nevertheless, the president expressed his deep concern for the environment, saying he was willing to renegotiate a deal if it could be made fair. After his speech, though, heads exploded all over the media. One would think Trump had committed the unpardonable sin.
Left-leaning reporters ignored his arguments and focused instead on whether Trump and his EPA secretary Scott Pruitt “believe” in global warming. Ostensibly if Trump expressed doubt about it, they could pounce and call him a “denier” of climate change – a phrase with nefarious overtones like “Holocaust denier.” Logically, though, the president’s agreement or non-agreement about human responsibility for climate change is not the issue. The author of The Art of the Deal could be a complete believer in global warming as strongly as Al Gore and still conclude that the Paris accord was a bad deal. Or, he could have taken the Constitutional strategy and relegated such decisions to Congress. (Commentators seem fairly certain if President Obama had tried that, it would never have passed.) Or, he could believe the globe is warming, but be uncertain about the causes, and have voted in favor of staying in. In many ways, then, President Trump’s decision seems perfectly logical. It’s doubtful any of these options would have satisfied the “believers” in anthropogenic climate change, though. Taking the word “anthropogenic” out commits the unpardonable sin just as much, making one a “denier.”
Now let’s look at a couple of reactions from “science reporters” that are well-known for treating Darwinian evolution as unassailable fact.
Unimpeachable logic says Trump shouldn’t quit Paris climate pact (New Scientist). Before the decision to pull out had even been aired, Owen Gaffney claimed the logical high ground against it. (Gaffney should not have used the word “unimpeachable” about his logic, because it invites us to try to impeach it.) It’s not for him to decide if his case is unimpeachable. It’s for the fair-minded reader to evaluate his evidence and his reasoning.
“Leaving would be an illogical act of self-harm,” Gaffney says, a curious claim in light of all the jobs it would cost Americans suffering from an overwhelming debt from the past administration. So what evidence does Gaffney present? He says, first, that it might lead other nations to bolt from the accord. How that causes self-harm to America is not exactly clear. Gaffney further says that some of the leftist activist groups and funds might lose out. Again, how that is an illogical act of self-harm is not apparent. Third, Gaffney flat-out says that denying climate change is illogical. That’s an assertion, not an argument.
Of all Trump’s policy choices, his attitude on climate ranks among the most illogical – and competition in this space is fierce. By leaving the Paris deal, he’ll change little and risk missing out on the economic gains of an energy revolution.
His ‘logic’ is purely hypothetical and politically biased. Gaffney does not consider whether market forces could take care of energy production in a smarter way – a position conservative and libertarian economists argue with historical case studies and laws of supply and demand. They would certainly welcome a chance to impeach his logic. In addition, Gaffney fails to answer any of the president’s specific claims about the flaws in the Paris deal. If indeed the best case scenario shows the accord will accomplish no significant climate mitigation, why would anyone consider it logical to stay in? In short, nowhere in the article does Gaffney present unimpeachable logic. He just boasts about it.
Want to Really Boost the Economy? Stay in the Paris Agreement (Live Science). Tia Ghose is another perennial Darwin loyalist in her leftist media outlet, but even here, it seems she is out of her element trying to report about climate policy. She tries to take a more friendly, positive approach. Rather than calling the president illogical, she proposes that it would be in America’s best interest to stay in the unconstitutional executive order (which, as we stated, is not a treaty approved by the people’s representatives, but more like a king’s decree). To shield her own bias, she calls on an expert to speak for her:
But the idea that the Paris Agreement will harm the economy is nonsensical, said Jonathan Koomey, a lecturer in Earth Systems at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences at Stanford University. For one, the agreed-upon emissions cuts are nonbinding; the only legal obligation is that the United States report its carbon emissions. So if the required cuts are too damaging to the economy, the United States is free to revise its emissions goals, he said.
“You can’t have nonbinding standards that are draconian,” Koomey told Live Science.
Beyond that, most economic analyses suggest that environmental regulations may actually boost the economy, both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm, Koomey said.
Here, she lets Koomey call President Trump’s decision “nonsensical,” which is equivalent to illogical. But in what way is it nonsensical? Her expert claims that the USA could revise its emissions goals. In other words, the USA could lie. It could state emissions goals at the outset, but then fail to keep them, saying, On second thought, we don’t like that promise, so we’re going to lower the standards. Think about this argument. If the USA could do that, so could any other party to the accord. What’s logical to expect is that nobody would keep their promises once economic pains set in, and no climate mitigation would result.
She also plays the “most doctors agree” trick (bandwagon) — “most economic analyses suggest” (OK, name one; probably not by Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek) “that environmental regulations” (how about the ones that declare a puddle on private property ‘wetlands’ forbidding a landowner from planting?) “may” (hypothetical) “actually boost the economy” (non-specific), “both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm” (glittering generalities). This paragraph is followed by a rash of statistics from leftist-only sources geared to make Obama look good – you remember, the president who lost more jobs, created more dependency, and increased the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. The statistics commit the fallacies of card stacking, either-or, and non-sequitur, even if they had something to do with the Paris accord. We suspect the Heritage Foundation would love the opportunity to make their case with other statistics.
Ghose’s other point is, like Gaffney’s, hypothetical: environmental regulations “may” boost the economy. How exactly government regulations spur innovation and prevent harm is not exactly clear. She and her expert Koomey point to past instances of regulations that helped clean the air and spurred innovation (in their version of the story). Sure; with some card-stacking, half-truths and hypotheticals, one could employ propaganda tactics to promote the big-government liberal view, but that would ignore numerous recent stories of real harm to American families, communities and whole cities destroyed by burdensome regulations (think Detroit). It also ignores whether free-market policies might achieve the same green-energy innovation without government regulation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris Climate Accord! In fact, all the innovation that has occurred in the USA and other countries took place before Paris, and is likely to continue, Paris or not. So who is being nonsensical here?
The fact is, both New Scientist and Live Science are so committed to big-government, globalist, leftist thinking, they have abandoned logic and any sense of journalistic fairness. Their agenda is to defend their political bias, no matter what. Calling anyone they disagree with illogical or nonsensical is not an argument. It is not journalism. It is not science, which should welcome openness and lively debate.
Readers wary of our reporting here may claim we have a bias, too. That’s right. Everybody has a bias. But a journalist can choose to be fair about their bias, strive for transparency, and work hard to give both sides of an argument a fair hearing in their coverage. We can guarantee you that neither New Scientist nor Live Science will link to our article! Our attitude? We link to the original sources. Go ahead–read their articles. Have at it. Come back and evaluate our response. May the best case win! We’re not afraid for our readers to look into the very best arguments of those with other positions. We try to persuade with logic and evidence a different perspective in the news that is rarely heard in the secular media.
If you decide our coverage is more fair, then consider: the leftist reporters who constantly bash President Trump and all conservative positions are the same ones praising Darwin every chance they get. Do you expect them to give a fair hearing to creation or intelligent design? Ha! That would be most illogical, Spock would say.