« The Boomerang Baby Boom: "Three in 10 young adults live with parents, highest level since 1950s" | Main | "Sooner or later, Iran’s terror base in Gaza will be uprooted." »
March 16, 2012
"In the world of Bioethics, Moral relativism has been refined to an artform,"
and the prominence of bioethical arguments is expanding considerably here in the U.S.The reason for this can be tied directly to the elitist adoption of environmental activism as a vehicle to promote morally relative social policies. The field of climate change continues to offer the most ample venue. If the very future of our planet is supposedly at stake due to the mere creation of carbon emissions, a product of almost every human action, then all aspects of human life come into question and eventually, lend themselves to taxation, regulation, and domination. Despite the fact that climate research labs like those at the CRU of East Anglia and NASA still refuse to release the source data for their experiments supporting their assertions that man causes global warming, and the fact that East Anglia's rigged computer modeling methods were exposed through the Climategate emails, the Bioethics community continues to use manmade global warming as the boogieman rationalization for scientific tyranny. -- Lost Principles And Social Destruction | ZeroHedge
Posted by gerardvanderleun at March 16, 2012 9:50 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
A "bioethicist" is one paid to tell you what you want to hear.
Posted by: Scott M at March 16, 2012 8:01 PM
This entire mentality started with the studies on cigarette smoking. They never released the data on smoking or on second hand smoke. No surprise that the ethicists for the ruling elite provide the data paid for by your tax dollars and in accordance with the desires of the "betters".
Posted by: IndyJones at March 17, 2012 8:34 AM
After listening to a 10-minute spiel from an Earth Scientist (ever wonder why people claiming to be Earth Scientists are usually statisticians?) on the existential threat posed by CO2, I casually mentioned that it would be physically impossible for CO2 to cause a greenhouse effect because it's transparent to IR radiation.
If looks could kill, I'd have been atomized...
Posted by: BillT at March 19, 2012 10:42 PM