Wisconsin

Speaking of Wisconsin, I do give all my support to the folks fighting the unconscionable effort to split up the union.  If you couldn’t guess from the previous post, I’m for both unions and copyright protections.  I just have a bit more support for the unions ‘cause they organize themselves rather than rely upon the government to do it for them.  But, having said that, I’m also really, really pissed at all the folks out protesting.  I don’t know for sure, so I might be maligning people unfairly, in which case I apologize, but I strongly suspect that a whole bunch of those folks were no where near a voting booth last November.  So now that protests and activism are hardly worth a bucket of spit, now we’re all active.  Why won’t progressives get out and act when it would actually do some good?  I don’t know. 

It’s like during the health care debate when every progressive wanted Obama to be more like our hero Johnson.  In 1968 supporting Johnson wasn’t so cool, but now yes.  Or Al Gore could be beloved in any year after 2000, but 2000 not so much.

Sigh.

Conservatives and Lady Hope

I just had to comment on this post from Matt Yglesias, regarding Al Gore citing Dr. Wieslay Maslowski to the effect that “there is a 75 per cent change that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”  It turns out to have significance not only for the Lady Hope reference in my title (which I’ll explain in a bit) but also as an example of the kind of nonsense that Bob Somerby has been railing against for years. 

It seems various conservatives were in full faux outrage mode over Gore’s saying this because conservatives found a report that Dr. Maslowski had made predictions that were marginally less serious.  Proof the conservatives claimed that Al Gore was making it all up and climate change was a fraud.  Then, what would come as no surprise to Bob Somerby, it has come to light that in other works, Dr. Maslowksi had, in fact, made exactly the prediction that Gore cited.  Once again Al Gore has been called dishonest by his opponents over a comment that was completely accurate, in every detail.  Check out Bob’s site for far more detailed and extensive review of the way Al Gore has been misrepresented.

But the other issue that this post brought to mind was a difference in the approach to assessing comments made by others.  To some people, deciding whether or not to believe some authority involves first deciding that the other person is virtuous, and if so then belief follows.  For others, the question of the authorities virtue is secondary at best, the primary concern is whether or not the authorities claim matches evidence, reason and experience.  If so, then the claims are to be believed, if not then disbelieved.  Therefore, I may well believe in the claims of an individual of questionable character, if the evidence supports him, against another who is generally more virtuous, if the evidence is against him.  Now, the general honesty of a person is not immaterial.  I’m more willing to accept the testimony of someone whose character I admire than from someone whose character I do not, but evidence and reason should always have the final say.

This brings us to the Lady Hope story.  This is a tale that is brought up from time to time by Creationists in arguments against biologists.  Basically the claim is that on his deathbed Charles Darwin was visited by one Lady Hope who converted him to Christianity (and supposedly a fairly literalist version of Christianity) and Darwin renounced evolution.  Now the story is certainly not accurate and has been refuted many times.   But striking to those of us of a scientific mindset is the question “Why would it matter?”.  No person of reason thinks that evolution is a correct description of the history of life on Earth because Darwin, a brilliant scientist, proposed it.  Rather it is recognized that Darwin, by careful observation of nature and by sound reasoning, developed a simple, elegant and accurate description of life’s history that is amply supported by the evidence.  Because he was able to do this we conclude he was brilliant.  The evidence and reason come first, conclusions about Darwin’s character follow.  Had Darwin, in fact, renounced evolution, it would have no impact on my conclusions about evolution.  The same reasons and evidence would still lead to the same conclusion on my part.  I would have less respect for Darwin had he done so, but there could be no change in my conclusions about his theory.  To join in abandoning the theory would require evidence that it was false, not a change in heart by Darwin. 

In a similar vein I respect and admire Newton because his description of the laws of motion and universal gravitation are such a powerful, effective and well-supported description of nature as we observe it.   Were someone to present incontrovertible evidence that Newton had abandoned gravity, and the Copernican model, for Ptolemy's geocentric model, I would think that Newton became crazy perhaps, but could not be affected in my recognition of the accuracy of his theories.  In fact, I need not speculate on some imagined abandonment of gravity.  Newton, the same author of the Principia, and discoverer of laws governing motion and gravity was also a devoted alchemist.  I have no problem admiring his work in physics which is richly supported by evidence, while regarding his work in alchemy, which is supported by none, as a waste of his time.  Again, a scientific description is valuable because it matches our careful observations of nature, this comes first.  The character of the person making the claims may then be judged, in part, by the accuracy and value of those claims, but this judgment of character is secondary.

This brings me then to Al Gore.  The right wing seems to be heavily invested in a kind of Lady Hope story here.  If we prove that Al Gore, a leading spokesman for the science of climate change, is lacking in virtue, then it calls into question the claims he is making.  But that is nonsense.  The claims of climate change are well supported by numerous independent lines of evidence.  The overwhelming evidence indicates that increasing concentration of CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, is causing rising average global temperatures and this is causing various changes to global climate.  Whether Al Gore is a perfect example of human virtue, a monster of historical proportions, or (as I suspect) something in between, has, and should have, absolutely no significance on this question.

Gore's Speach

Hits all the right points.

The following selections

The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.

A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. We now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.

and this

Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.

also this

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment’s notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when the last generation had to fight and win two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it’s up to us to do the very same thing!

just to select a few, sum up many of the points I've been making here. I could quote a great deal more as well. It is truly an excellent speech. Read it.