Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Top Climate Expert: Bush White House Edits Testimony of Government Scientists

Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress at 11:05 AM on January 28, 2008.


Government scientists have said they personally experienced pressure to eliminate the terms like climate change from a variety of communications.
hansen1
Hansen

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

In 2006, the government's top global warming researcher, James Hansen, revealed the government's efforts to muzzle him from speaking out about climate change. NASA political appointees reviewed all his lectures, papers, and requests for interviews from journalists.

In a new e-mail, Hansen reveals that the censoring is not only happening to him, but to all government scientists. He writes that the White House Office of Management and Budget reviews all scientific testimony to make sure that it's "consistent with the President's budget":

Do you know that before a government scientist testifies to Congress his/her testimony is typically reviewed and edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget? When I asked for a justification, I was told that a government scientist's testimony "needs to be consistent with the President's budget".

Huh? There have never been any budget numbers in my testimony or in the testimony of most scientists. And OMB's editing of the scientific content is invariably designed to make the testimony fit better with the position of the political party in power (yes, it is a bi-partisan problem). Where is it stated or implied in the Constitution that the Executive Branch should have such authority? (Actually, does the Constitution not vest control of the purse strings to Congress?) Why does not Congress get incensed about this and fight back?

In October, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had her congressional testimony on the "Human Impacts of Global Warming" "eviscerated" by the OMB. The final version had almost no references to the impacts of global warming.

In Jan. 2007, a survey found that 46 percent of government scientists "personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Digg!

Tagged as: science, bush administration, global warming, hansen, climte change

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UFOS?!?!?!
Posted by: particle on Jan 28, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the press as usual dutifully takes it's cues from the ruling criminals.

The League of Conservation Voters has taken a look at the stenographers, er, I mean the top reporters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Science/ Anti-Fact
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jan 28, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most anti-science (and in general, anti-fact) administration in US history strikes again.
I knew that the Bushies were editing climate-scientists' reports, but is the article saying that the administration edits the work of ALL US government scientists? That is pretty serious stuff, if so. (Editing just the climate scientists' work is serious enough!)
I will assume that, yes, all government scientists are having their work edited by Bush and friends until I hear otherwise, because, well, this is so believable (knowing the Bush administration) it can't be otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Morality of Climate Change
Posted by: Corpsman1 on Jan 28, 2008 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you ever talk to others about climate change, I recommend the following quotes because this is a moral issue, not a Democratic or Republican, right or left issue. Conservatives, by and large, almost always want to maintain the status quo. Don't turn to conservatives for imaginative, immediate action on any topic. They are rarely 'first adapters' or bold in trying new things, nor does working the greater good appear of utmost interest to them, as long as they've got theirs. (The word 'selfish' comes to mind.) Progressives (liberals) are just the opposite and more willing to embrace new ideas and science and incorporate this knowledge into daily life for the greater good. In my discussions, especially when dealing with evangelicals, or those claiming to be 'born again,' the following quotes by religious leaders and others of notoriety help to emphasize the MORAL aspect of climate change and the environment, and the immediacy of this topics importance in the hierarchy of all other priorities. This issue is of more import than any other issue because it has to do with the future of the entire planet -- THE ENTIRE PLANET -- and survivability of our species, and all the other species with whom we share this big blue marble. And for those that still say the "science isn't conclusive," I say, "For the sake of our children and the planet, it is better to err on the side of caution and treat this issue as if is a dead-on certainty that climate change, perhaps cataclysmic climate change, is upon us. As I mentioned, no one knows when the "tipping point," -- that point of no return after which no matter what we do it will make no difference -- no one know when that point is. Many do not realize the enormity of the engine that drives climate and the millions of aspects of the environment. Anything we do will take decades or longer to have any affect. We had better act now, and America MUST lead the way. This is also another way to insure jobs for the future by emphasizing this imperative in alternative clean fuels -- no more sending our children to fight oil wars and no more polluting energy sources. We must find the answers to these issues, pronto. As Al Gore puts it: "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We need to go far -- quickly." The following quotes are good for political meetings or PTA or any other discussions where the issue of climate change comes up, or for use as supporting quotes in letters to the editor etc. because the following people 'get it':

“Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past. . .[A} new ecological awareness is beginning to emerge. . . . The ecological crisis is a moral issue.” ~Pope John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility [December 6, 1989] nos. 1,15.


“An Ecologically Sensitive Spirituality” by Thomas Berry in Earth Ethics, Fall 1996: “We need to move: from a spirituality of alienation from the natural world to a spirituality of intimacy with the natural world from a spirituality of the divine as revealed in words to a spirituality of the divine as revealed in the visible world about us. From a spirituality concerned with justice merely to humans to a spirituality of justice to the devastated Earth community. From the spirituality of the prophet to the spirituality of the shaman.” ~Thomas Berry


“All human institutions, professions, programs and activities must now be judged by the extent to which they inhibit, ignore, or foster a human and Earth relationship.” ~Thomas Berry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Morality of Climate Change Posted by: blitzmesser
More on the Morality of Climate Change
Posted by: Corpsman1 on Jan 28, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The Earth is ultimately a common heritage, the fruits of which are for the benefit of all. It is manifestly unjust that a privileged few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering available resources, while masses of people are living in conditions of misery at the very lowest level of existence. Today, the dramatic threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed and selfishness – both individual and collective – are contrary to the order of creation, an order which is characterized by mutual interdependence.” ~Pope John Paul II “The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility,” 1990

“What must it mean, now and henceforth, to be religious, in light of the condition of God’s creation at human hands? You’ve got to measure pace of response against the magnitude of that question.” ~Paul Gorman (“There is a River: Judeo-Christian Faiths Face the Earth in Crisis—An Interview with Paul Gorman” by Peter Warshall. Whole Earth, Winter 1997, p. 13. This is an excellent special issue called “The Earth in Crisis: Religion’s New Test of Faith.”)

“We are the generation of choice. We still have a choice to halt the destruction, the ravaging of the earth. We are the generation that could stand in harm’s way and be those who preserve God’s creation for future generations.” ~The Reverend Joan Campbell, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Christ

“The earth we inherit is in danger; the skies and the seas, the forests and the rivers, the soil and the air, are in peril. And with them humankind itself is threatened. As earth’s fullness has been our blessing, so its pollution now becomes our curse. As the wonder of nature’s integrity has been our delight, so the horror of nature’s disintegration now becomes our sorrow.” ~Rabbi Alexander Schindler, President, Union of American Hebrew Congregations

“The growing possibility of our destroying ourselves and the world with our own neglect and excess is tragic and very real.”
Billy Graham, Approaching Hoofbeats, 1983.

“We need a new system of values, a system of the organic unity between humankind and nature and the ethic of global responsibility.” ~Mikhail Gorbachev

“The adoption of statements on the environment by church councils and assemblies is important. But unless every local congregation actually carries out sound environmental practices in its buildings and in the homes of the members, these statements are worthless. Care of the earth—our mandate from the Creator—is the responsibility of us all.” ~The Reverend Dr. Herbert W. Chilstrom, Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

“To be effective, education and action on environmental issues must begin at the congregational or parish level. These groups can assess local needs or problems and hopefully work in ecumenical collaboration toward solutions.” ~Mrs. Annette Kane, Executive Director, National Council of Catholic Women.

“Caring for and healing the environment is the most telling mandate of the bible, both old and new testament, as well as from the writing of the church fathers of the early church this 'caring and healing' process must be at the core of congregational workings on the environment, because it is essentially what it means to be a Christian.” ~Reverend Dr. Milton Efthimou, Ecumenical Officer, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even More on the Morality of Climate Change
Posted by: Corpsman1 on Jan 28, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“If we are ever able to stop destroying our environment, it will be because person by person we decide, by God’s grace, to turn aside from greed and materialism. It will be because we learn that joy and fulfillment come through right relationship with God, neighbor and earth, not an ever escalating demand for more and more material consumption. Nowhere is that more possible than in local congregations that combine prayer and action, worship and analysis, deep personal love for the Creator and for the Creator’s garden.” ~Dr. Ronald Sider, Professor of Theology and Society, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Executive Director, Evangelicals for Social Action.

“One of our reformed principles is that as individuals and congregations we should be working to bring about Shalom—the fullest possible, sustainable life for all persons everywhere. Understanding the issues of eco-justice is primary to doing this.” ~The Reverend Dr. William R. Phillippe, Executive Director, General Assembly Council, Presbyterian Church USA

“The challenge before the religious community in America is to make every congregation—every church synagogue and mosque—truly ‘green’—a center of environmental study and action. That is their religious duty.” ~The Very Reverend James Parks Morton, Dean, Cathedral of St. John the Divine (Episcopal)

“What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny—that is, by religion.” ~Lynn White, from a basic article for considering the relationship of religion and ecology, that has been debated since it came out: White Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” In Western Man and Environmental Ethics, ed by Ian G. Barbour. Reading Mass: Addison-Westly Pub, Co. 1973, p. 24.

“The ecological crisis has provided the perfect vehicle for finally unleashing the powers of spirituality.” ~Michael Tobias Ecologist, author, filmmaker

“And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles, no matter how long, but only by a spiritual journey, a journey of one inch, very arduous and humbling and joyful, by which we arrive at the ground at our feet, and learn to be at home.” ~Wendell Berry

“Part of the answer lies in our systems. And part of the answer lies in the state of our souls.” ~Andrew Schmookler, The Illusion of Choice

“People should recognize that it is necessary to have a political force in order to get the changes that are needed to save the global system from grave danger, and actions that contribute to this are extremely valuable. Environmental groups will be glad to provide the necessary information to mount a credible and successful action.” ~Dr. Henry Kendall, Stratton Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chairman of the Board, Union of Concerned Scientists

“The effort of religious groups, based on moral conviction, rather than immediate self interest is likely to have a disproportionate effect in the political arena on behalf of the environment.” ~Dr. Edward O. Wilson, Baird Professor of Science, Harvard University

From “The Second Creation Story: Redefining the Bond Between Religion and Ecology,” Sierra Magazine, Nov/Dec. 1998: John Muir, on a ledge high above a waterfall in the Sierra or kneeling down to gaze at a daisy, could not contain his rapture. “Perched like a fly on this Yosemite dome, I gaze and sketch and bask...humbly prostrate before the vast display of God's power, and eager to offer self-denial and renunciation with eternal toil to learn any lesson in the divine manuscript.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Finally on the Morality of Climate Change
Posted by: Corpsman1 on Jan 28, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I think the environmental movement has lessened its effectiveness by not thinking more about the relationship between the human community and the natural community and how the two work together,“ says William Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society. “We need to find ways in which people can pay more attention to the places where they live. That's the heart of a spiritual relationship with the land.”

U.S. Catholic Conference echoes Pope John Paul II's emphatic (though woefully underreported) environmental teaching in its publication 'Renewing the Face of the Earth:' “Men and women bear a unique responsibility under God to safeguard the created world and by their creative labor even to enhance it.”

Episcopalian: Reverend Charles W. Treadwell of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in McKinney, Texas, puts it, “We have multiplied. We have subdued the earth. Now it's time to focus on the Second Creation story.”

Orthodox Christian Church: Bartholomew I, patriarch of the Orthodox Christian Church, declared: “To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin.” This was the first time that an international religious leader of such stature had applied the word “sin“ to acts of environmental degradation.

"Christians are supposed not merely to endure change, nor even to profit by it, but to cause it." ~Harry Emerson Fosdick

“Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.” ~Rachel Carson

“When civilization stands at the edge of a cliff, a step forward doesn’t make much sense.” ~Denis Hayes

"The more we exploit nature, The more our options are reduced, until we have only one: to fight for survival." ~Morris K. Udall

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What will happen...
Posted by: outlander55 on Jan 28, 2008 3:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the air is no longer breathable? When the water is no longer drinkable?
What will we do when we come to the realization that the government has been lying to us about decay of the environment? There will be only one thing we can do. Die.
And we can thank George Bush and his greedy corporate mentors for what is happening to the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What will happen... Posted by: Melvin
Low-Level Electric and Magnetic Fields
Posted by: fg on Jan 29, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone remember how, during the administration of Bush pere, the same thing took place as regards the EPA's extensive study of the health effects of exposure to low-level electric and magnetic fields? In its draft report, sent to the White House (read: "White House lawyers") for scrutiny, low-level EMFs were identified as ("probable"?--I can't recall) human carcinogens, a characterization the White House, in its infinite wisdom, removed from the final version of the EPA report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Low-Level Electric and Magnetic Fields
Posted by: fg on Jan 29, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone remember how, during the administration of Bush pere, the same thing took place as regards the EPA's extensive study of the health effects of exposure to low-level electric and magnetic fields? In its draft report, sent to the White House (read: "White House lawyers") for scrutiny, low-level EMFs were identified as ("probable"?--I can't recall) human carcinogens, a characterization the White House, in its infinite wisdom, removed from the final version of the EPA report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another brick in the wall
Posted by: willymack on Jan 29, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global climate change is an indisputable FACT, backed by mountains of good scientific observations by academics with no axe to grind or political aspirations. Naturally, the bushie thugs consider this information a threat to continuing enormous profits for Big Oil, Coal, and now "biofuels" which literally take food crops and convert them to alcohol for fuel without doing anything to reduce pollution. "Business as usual" of course includes kickbacks to the crooked politicans in this regime. This is but a brick in a wall of lies, distortions, omissions, and obfuscations that would dwarf the Great Wall of China.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Jan 29, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So pissed off at the people that put these thugs in charge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climate Change
Posted by: donl51 on Jan 29, 2008 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't make money for the power mongers!Northeast passage is open now,those were the words I heard from FAUXnews's money line awhile back,you know how much money thats going to save commerse shipping? no mention about any possible extinctions,..ever see the movie and attitude it displayed ''Silent Running''!!!,Climate change will alter some typography,elliminate several species of some living plants or animals,no matter ,the greedy who run the planet will survive ''nicely''

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "good" news is, the H2S will kill the rich too.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next president will have to take drastic action to prevent our extinction or the
collapse of civilization due to global warming . Great damage has been done, but
we still have 8 years before natural positive feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea
level will continue to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor"
compared to poison gas bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion generally causes or helps cause collapse of civilization
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," Jared
Diamond discusses how religion has played a role in the collapse
of many civilizations. Christianity contributed to the collapse of
the Greenland Viking civilization. If the Greenland Vikings had
spent their money on iron to make weapons and tools, they would
have had a better chance of survival. Instead they bought stained
glass windows and religious goods at a time when their sickles
were worn down to the point of looking like box cutters. The
Greenland Vikings stuck to their "Christian" and European values
when the Inuits [Eskimos] could have taught them how to hunt
whales and some kinds of seals. The Greenland Vikings stuck to
their dislike of fish while starving to death. The climate got
colder as well, but the Greenland Vikings could have survived if
they had been willing to give up their old time religion and values.
The Greenland Vikings killed the Inuits [Eskimos] they met when
they should have married into Inuit [Eskimo] society to get the
benefit of the successful Arctic lifestyle and culture of the Inuits
[Eskimos].
The inhabitants of Easter Island destroyed their environment and
caused their civilization to collapse to make more of their statue
gods.
If the Americans continue to choose religion and coal burning
over science and nuclear power, the civilization you are now part
of will collapse when global warming causes the drought in
Atlanta, Georgia, California, Australia, Greece, Turkey, the Sahel,
China and other places to grow to the point that agriculture
collapses.
Religionists will, of course, resist any change in values
regardless of the fact that a change in values is necessary for
survival. This is an issue of the preachers' income. In the end,
the preachers may be eaten, but it is too late by that time.
[Cannibalism has been proven in the case of the fall of Anasazi
civilization in Chaco Canyon. The Anasazi hunted their
neighbors at the end.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To survive, we must replace religion with science.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We atheists will, by the end of this century, extend human life expectancy past
1000 years, colonize the moon, Mars and near-earth asteroids, and possibly create
a universe. If that isn't enough, we may evolve ourselves into a truly intelligent
species. We may have colonized the whole solar system by the end of the
century. We will send probes to several nearby star systems and identify living
planets 200 light years away. We will create truly democratic governments, using
the Internet to enable every citizen to vote on every issue.

Science fully replaces religion but science is not a religion. Science is a process
and method of determining truth by doing Scientific experiments and a simple
absolute lack of faith and religion. Nature isn't just the final authority on truth,
Nature is the Only authority. There are zero human authorities. Scientists do not
vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out
what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable] experiments.
Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the only source of truth. [To be
public, it has to be visible to other people in the room. What goes on inside one
person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or with another
instrument.] Science is the ultimate Protestant Reformation in which Religion is
reformed out of existence.

If you want to know the truth about morals and ethics, go to a library and look up
sociobiology or Sciobio. Sociobiology is a new branch of Science but there are
already hundreds of books on it. The origin of the Universe is the subject of
Cosmology which is part of astronomy which is part of the science of physics.
Science has taken over all of the jurisdictions formerly reserved for religion and
philosophy. Philosophy and religion are obsolete.

ANY culture that goes unmodified for 1000 years will endanger its practitioners.
In all of those civilizations that fell, failure to adapt to new circumstances and
failure to foresee problems that had not been experienced in living memory or in
written memory helped cause the downfall. SCIENCE is what enables us to
foresee problems that have never happened to people before. Paleontology tells
us about problems that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. God will not
solve our problems because there is no such critter. We have to solve our own
problems or go extinct. We know a lot about gravity. We can certainly measure
and compute gravity. God is not measurable and therefore does not exist.

IF you happen to be a Viking living on the island of Greenland between the years
800 and 1500, THEN you need to overcome your old culture and religion and
marry an Eskimo to survive. Since that is in the past and those Vikings all died of
starvation in the past, that particular adaptation is no longer applicable. There is a
new adaptation that you need to make to survive. You have to quit mining coal
and replace coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. Religion is an
impediment to progress. Religion is an impediment to survival. Science allows
us to constantly modify and advance our culture so that extinction events and
civilization collapses can be avoided. Constant modification is necessary for long
term survival.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is caused by insanity.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 1:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]