If you have evidence that the guy writing that article is an OEC, that would be interesting. Mere speculation, not so much.
Things is, there are many examples of “luminaries” on the right that think now that to “protect our livelihood” that many rules or regulations should be dismissed.
And like former representative Michele Bachman many Republicans now use the canard of the EPA (that thanks to current Republican politics is just about the only weapon that government has against AGW) is costing us jobs. :rolleyes:
Just today on NPR was the tale of a young family (and they were not poor) from China that moved to the USA, the reason they and others are giving now for that move? Because the north of China is so polluted (both rivers and air) they prefer to start families… and business… and to create jobs in a place that does mind the environment were they live. The reason should had been obvious for many except many Republicans, pollution has many ways to also end business and lives.
Why not?
It was a lot more than just particulate matter that the EPA was successfully able to curtail, it was SO2 and nitrous oxides that contribute to acid rain. The soot particulates belching out of smokestacks are simply the symbolic visible manifestation of pollution. SO2 and NOx are just as invisible as CO2. You can’t see any of them, so in that respect the manifestation of pollution is exactly the same.
The real issue is that CO2 is much more fundamentally and intrinsically linked to fossil fuel combustion, and far less amenable to simple scrubbing and sequestration. Which is precisely why a whole industry has arisen to deal with the CO2 problem through the path of least cost and least resistance, namely, to deny that the problem exists.
He is a Catholic, so yes, count on him on believing in old earth creationism.
He is also Gay, but then catholics do believe many impossible things before breakfast. He also supports Donald Trump to become president. I do not want to know what the other 3 impossible things he thinks about. 
You’re right, I took a bit of a leap there, but it can be looked at in one of two ways:
1)leave out the EPA stuff. Ask yourself WHY people fight climate change. What’s in it for them? My opinion is that they don’t like the restrictions put on industries. Even if you don’t bring up the EPA, I think they would.
An interesting argument and counter-argument I heard was that climate change is popular because that’s what scientists are paid to look for. The counter-argument is that scientists are paid to find the facts. If there was no global warming, all those same scientists would still have their same jobs, they’d just be finding different data. IMO, the ‘it’s just to give people jobs’ argument doesn’t hold water.
2)If you hear someone spouting off about the climate change and how it’s a bunch of bullshit, ask them their feelings about the EPA. You’ll likely hear things about how the government is restricting business. The government should stay out of commerce and a bunch of other GOP type stuff.
Again, I know I took a leap, but I think it goes hand in hand. If it doesn’t I can take that back. Of course, denying climate change and disliking the EPA, is probably correlated with denying climate change and being republican.
Unrelated…a year or two back Milwaukee was having one of the coldest few days on record. Something like a week without going above zero. I heard quite a few people saying crap about how there’s no such thing as climate change (because it’s cold, right now, where I’m standing). Just for kicks I looked up the temp in Australia. As luck would have it, they were having a heat wave. 100+ degree weather. I guess if our cold weather means there’s no such thing as global warming, there hot weather means there is, right?
(ETA, and after someone said ‘see, there’s no such thing as global warming’ the next guy said ‘that’s what happens when you get your weather reports from the government instead of the weather man’. I thought that was funny).
The analogy I always think of is: That’s like saying ‘they keep saying the murder rate has gone up in this city, but that’s not true because I haven’t been killed yet’.
Joe Biden is also Catholic. As is Nancy Pelosi. John Kerry and any number of Congressional Democrats. I guess it’s not that big a deal to be an OEC then.
The position of the Catholic Church is not and has never been Old Earth Creationism. Individuals are free to believe what the want (see: Michael Behe), but the position of the vast majority of Catholics, at least in the US and Europe, is not a form of creationism. No mention of evolution was really made until 1950, but even before then the encyclical was a reflection of current teaching and not a revolution. The position is theistic evolution, which is a completely different thing, and in practice in Catholic schools means that theology is taught in theology class and evolutionary biology in biology class.
He’s Catholic, so count on him being anti-death penalty.
GIGO, please don’t post here like the climate change deniers you spend so much time mocking.
So, not interesting indeed, and that was my point too, one wonders why you complained about it.
Not Young Creationism anyhow:
Things is that when I mentioned the part about lukewarmers is that I was indeed taking into account how diverse their positions are, just like Catholics regarding evolution. In the global warming denial front many of the ones that do preach inaction do believe in climate science but beside sincere skeptics I see many that do indeed minimize the problem so much that they end up acting like deniers in the practical sense.
Okay, but how is any of that Old Earth Creationism? That’s a very specific belief, which among other things suggests that species do not evolve into other species. This is something not taught in Catholic schools.
There’s really not that much diversity: 80-90% of Catholics support basic evolutionary theories, the highest among any Christian denominations of reasonable size. A similar percentage is found among Anglicans/Episcopalians, and high but not nearly so among mainstream Protestants. It is really among the evangelical types that you find strong support for YEC, OEC, and ID.
The church of Ben Carson (Seventh Day Adventist) is one of these that rejects evolution. Again I’d like to see him tackled in a later installment of this series, but I’m not holding my breath.
Not holding it either, 
I think the hang up here is not that big, scientifically speaking the church and science do agree that the earth is very old indeed, they quibble on the details of who/what was responsible but many Catholics do not shy away from calling the beginning of the universe the moment of creation, and then many do consider that evolution took place… but with divine intervention of course.
As I started to read from the Breithole[sup]TM[/sup] I came across the following and stopped.
As an amateur historian of science, I’ve thought Bruno was underappreciated. Yes, he was a philosopher rather than a scientist, but he taught Galileo the doctrine of uniformity which is one of the latter’s most influential advances. As the quote above (“burned at the stake”) implies, Bruno’s heresy might be the right-wing Notsobrightbart’s biggest complaint about Bruno.
TL;DR: Yes, many intellectuals are overrated. Put Breitbart himself on that list.
Uhm… experience?
I’ve known quite a few people with PhD whose study track had been so narrow they didn’t know most of the basic stuff about their own discipline (for example, organic chemists who didn’t know you’re supposed to cool exothermic reactions). My own MSc in Chemistry didn’t add anything to my knowledge of traditional Physical Chemistry or of Crystalography, despite including coursework in both, and if anybody wants me to do any electrochemistry I’ll need training. But all the MSc diploma says is “chemistry”, it doesn’t indicate any kind of specialization.
Ben Carson is not a scientist, he’s a former brain surgeon. That’s a highly technical specialty, but it’s not science in the sense of “adding to mankind’s body of knowledge about the universe”. If you need a brain surgeon it doesn’t matter if he believes in evolution or not, or is aware the Earth goes around the Sun rather than vice versa, what matters is his technical skills.
I’d never heard of this Yiannopoulos prat before this morning, and already I’ve seen him being an idiot in two completely different contexts.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a university dropout. What, then, puts him in the position to critique Dr Carson or Mr Nye?
This post is unresponsive to the one of mine to which it purports to reply.
This post is fallacious. I am a Catholic, and I am not an old Earth creationist.
Yes. This is a fair summary of what I believe: that God exists, that He was responsible for the events we call The Big Bang, and by that table break sent the balls over the universal billiards table in ways that ultimately resulted in the current universe. In that universe, the physical laws exist that caused our solar system to form, through an unknown but natural event triggered life on Earth, and such life grew and changed by virtue of natural selection, with successful forms reproducing and mutations introducing changes to allow even more successful forms to appear and reproduce.
That’s consistent with Catholic teaching.
It’s not Old Earth Creationism.
Do you agree?
Now, you said:
Was that right, or wrong?
Can you admit error, like a scientist should?
Keep in mind that if you click on the “none of the details are correct” link, it sends you to a blogger on Discover Magazine, so at least he’s sourcing someone else and not offering his own analysis. But, and I noted this earlier, the complaint is lodged against the writer, not NdGT, who was the narrator of the series. Also, as you go further back in time during that era, the term “scientist” becomes less meaningful. Science and religion were not seen as necessarily separate things the way we view them today. And the Discover Mag blogger does note that the details presented in Cosmos are pretty much what’s in most textbooks.
Like many advocacy sites, the writer there was probably counting on most people not taking the time to click on the links to the source material. And that’s a pretty good bet, even on a site like this where people should know better.
I very much appreciate this post. There’s an unfortunate tendency here to concede error either (a) never, or (b) pried from the cold dead hands of the poster. It is much appreciated to see this, where someone can say, “Yeah, Ok, maybe this was veer the top,”
That said, I agree there’s strong correlation there – that is, if you ask all the climate change deniers to wear red T-shirts and all the people that oppose the EPA to wear yellow hats, there’s going to be a lot of folks with red shirts and yellow hats on.
But my objection to the photo rested on more basic grounds. I think the majority of people who saw that photo would recoil, including most who are fuzzy about what “EPA” even stands for. In other words, the picture shows a very visible aspect of pollution, one that alms it everyone objects to, but one which isn’t a fair proxy for the actual issue.
By way of analogy, anti-abortion activists will sometimes stand in front of clinics with gory pictures of mutilated baby bodies. These are not fakes (generally) but they are images of partial birth abortions, a vanishingly rare procedure. They use the picture to argue that abortion should be prohibited: “Do you want this done?” the picture asks the viewer? And of course the average viewer recoils. But that picture isn’t a fair representational of the vast majority of abortions; the abortion argument is not fairly represented by those pictures.