How Not To Learn About Climate Science
The point I’d like to share here isn’t how morally outrageous it is for a man of God to make a statement like this; that goes without saying.
My point is that it’s factually incorrect, and, what’s more, there is no reason that anyone, regardless of his faith, should care a whit about the legal opinions of a theologian (or whatever this walking atrocity is properly called).
It’s the same thing I often say about climate change. Do you ask pastry chefs or professional ice hockey players what they think about global warming? Of course not. Why not? Their viewpoints don’t matter, because there is nothing in their backgrounds that qualifies them to add to our understanding of climate science.
Of course, the case becomes even more ludicrous when there are vested interests at stake. Here are some famous climate deniers and their backgrounds. See if you can spot the absurdity:
• Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.
• Marc Morano, executive director of CFACT, an anti-science think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil, and Chevron.
• Christopher C. Horner, Senior Legal Fellow for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) and a senior fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Horner has personally received funding from the coal company Alpha Natural Resources for legal counsel, as well as fossil fuel funding to his organization.
• Steve Milloy was most recently the Director of External Policy and Strategy at Murray Energy Corp, which claims to be the largest privately-owned coal producer in the United States.
I try to stay up on climate science, but I don’t do it by talking to my next-door neighbor, who owns The Mandarin Touch, a Chinese restaurant. The food’s good, and the drinks are enormous, but his understanding (or lack thereof) on climate change has no relevance whatsoever.
Craig,
Once again, you appear to have been misled by reading only a headline and not the what the man actually said, in doing so you have got yourself all worked up for nothing and are guilty of repeating a lie.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Franklin Graham’s opinions, but I am a fan of being accurate when making accusations.
So let’s “factcheck” shall we ?
Fact: Rev. Franklin Graham NEVER said, “attempted rape is not a crime” and that Brett Kavanaugh “respected” his victim by “not finishing.”
Fact : What did he say ?
Rev Franklin Graham said :
“Well, there wasn’t a crime that was committed. These are two teenagers, and it’s obvious that she said no and he respected it and walked away — if that’s the case, but he says he didn’t do it. He just flat out says that’s just not true. Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that, so I don’t know what the issue is. This is just an attempt to smear his name, that’s all”.
From this the Daily Kos trumpeted ;
“Franklin Graham: Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh ‘respected’ his victim by not finishing,”
The lesson here should be never repeat headlines from sensationalist websites or publications without reading the full text of what was actually said !
Franklin graham was speaking from a moral, not a legal perspective.
Curiously, two years before his “conversion” , Graham was a bit of a rebel being expelled in 1070 from LeTourneau College in Longview, Texas, for keeping a female classmate out past curfew.
Many years ago, I defended a soldier charged in a similar situation facing court martial proceedings. Privately, reflecting after the case I believed both parties probably believed their versions of what occurred and the truth had become blurred in mind of both the accused and accuser after endless repetition and input for other parties.
Humans are fallible creatures.
Legally, even if the allegation against Kavanaugh are to be accepted as entirely accurate, a charge of ‘Attempted Rape’, would be very doubtful to be sustained. A lesser charge of sexual assault might more feasible, but very difficult to prove without any physical evidence.
Most judges would take the view that no jury, properly instructed could form a judgement ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that in Kavanaugh’s mind he had formed an intent to commit rape, and dismiss the prosecution.
However, it must be noted that accusations of this nature are easy to make, and always extremely difficult to defend.
It’s also important to be fair, and remember Judge Kavanaugh denies the allegation and such an event ever taking place. The accuser’s credibility is not helped by over the years having told differing of the tale with changing dates and numbers of persons present.
No corroborating contemporaneous witness can be found. Those witnesses that may have been present strenuously deny such and incident taking place, and no one can recall Kavanaugh attending such parties or being intoxicated.
Even Kavanaugh’s student political enemies expressed amazement at the allegation, most are categorical in their opinion such behaviour would be completely out of character for someone they considered a rather colourless and priggish student.
Nor have any other similar incidents revealing a pattern of conduct ever been leveled against a person who seems to have led an exemplary personal life.
Craig, I think before you get out your rope and burning torches, it might be wise to at least get at least a modicum of fact right, don’t you ?
Craig,
Sorry to enlarge on this theme, but a former federal and state prosecutor currently practicing law in Philadelphia, George Parry has contributed an article in the current issue of American Spectator I thought may interest you.
[https://spectator.org/resisting-a-lynch-mob/]
The author compare the classic 1960 book, “to kill a mocking bird” with the prevalent mood of how an ardent Metoo# advocate may post a book review in 2018.
I include below an excerpt, but the whole article is worth reading:
” It is clear that Harper Lee, a female, was a self-hating misogynist who promoted for profit the idea that a woman could actually lie about sexual assault and that such a lie could unfairly destroy an unjustly accused man’s life.
Atticus Finch, the so-called hero of the story, is glorified for questioning the victim’s credibility, as if that sort of behavior is supposed to be acceptable and, even worse, praiseworthy.
How did such a disgusting piece of trash get published? Why haven’t the book and movie been banned for promoting a negative stereotype of women?
And Gregory Peck? What a pig! How much was he paid to portray Atticus as a brave seeker of truth? His estate should be forced to pay retributions to the National Organization for Women.
By today’s standards, the only heroes of the story are the all-white jurors who saw through Atticus’s trickery and believed the female victim.
(Unless, of course, the accused male is a progressive Democrat ;))
Just thought I’d share this small, thought provoking offering.
The same thing applies with asking a newborn to tell you who to vote for (although it seems like the majority of Americans did this when voting for Trump). It’s simply irrational since they have no prior experience.