Unhinged: Senator Boxer ridicules 'philosopher', assails Catholic priest at Senate climate hearing

Sen. Boxer, will you just shut up for a moment and let the witnesses, called to testify, answer the question. Jeez.

Senator Boxer, you global warming alarmists like to say that climate change is a moral issue, but then you ridicule and cut off a philosopher and priest who are addressing the morality of global warming because they're "not scientists." At last, has it come to this, that you madam, have no logic?

Hat tip: The Daily Caller

Read why Americans need to learn about the nation's most ignored war.

Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.

Find me on Facebook and Twitter.

Want to be notified by email when I post? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • Dennis, I'm curious about what the "morality of global warming" means. How does that play into the overall discussion?

  • Pope Francis' comments on global warming are couched in moral terms. Here's an example: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/248596-the-science-and-morality-of-climate-change. Here's another one: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4584
    I'm one who believes that there frequently and legitimately are moral (not necessarily religious) questions involved in public policy issues. I think most people do too. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, for example, was imbued with moral (as well as religious) imperatives.

  • The annoying thing about this that there is no certification organization for "scientist". Doctors are only doctors when licensed. They can show you a piece of paper which makes them a doctor. Not so for "scientist". But this is by intention. Anyone can do scientific research. Anyone can have their scientific research published. I am not employed as a scientist, but I have had scientific research published.

    Just like a writer is a writer, regardless of whether or not he or she is published, a scientist is one who researches the truth of the natural world, regardless of being published.

    The mistake of the guy employed as a philosopher was answering "no" to the question of whether he was a scientist.

  • In reply to Rick Bohning:

    So the philosopher should have said he was a scientist because he has researched the truth of the natural world? Are you for real?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Yes I am for real. Classic fallacy of poisoning the well. What have I said that is false?

    How do you define scientist? Someone published? There are thousands of scientists working in industry who have never published. Is it working in a scientific field? Again I refer you to the thousands who have done scientific research on their own dime and got published, all the while working as engineers, cabbies, fry cooks, and yes, even philosophers.

  • What to know about Father Sirico? He's a conservative and a libertarian. His Acton Society is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Again, poisoning the well fallacy. Who funds him does not change the veracity of his words. You can do better.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: