Categories
Catholicism Christianity English Ethics Politics

St. Paul Against the Christian Churches’ Secular Activities

2 Corinthians 9, 7: “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

It is a pity that so many Christian religious leaders, from Episcopalians to Roman Catholics, have decided to forget St. Paul’s message: one is saved by Grace, and not by (Divine) Law, let alone by human law. All their struggles to make politics follow their ethical rules, don’t really sound like something to be expected from people of Faith.

Categories
Cattolicesimo Clericalismo Cristianesimo Elezioni2008 Etica Italia Italiano Politica

San Paolo Contro L’Ingerenza della Chiesa in Politica

2 Corinzi 9, 7: “Dia ciascuno come ha deliberato in cuor suo; non di mala voglia, né per forza, perché Dio ama un donatore gioioso.”

E’ un vero peccato che gli attuali gestori del Cattolicesimo abbiano deciso di dimenticare completamente il messaggio paolino: e’ la Grazia a giustificare, non la Legge (divina)…e men che meno, la legge umana. I loro affanni perche’ la politica segua l’etica cattolica, suonano come una terribile mancanza di fede.

Categories
Italia Italiano Politica

Un Euro per l’Alitalia

No, non sto proponendo di supervalutare le azioni Alitalia prima che arrivino a zero…suggerisco invece di vendere la Compagnia Aerea per un euro, al primo che capiti (come l’intera azienda automobilistica Rover, venduta per una sterlina alcuni anni fa).

E che non se ne parli piu’.

Categories
AGW catastrophism Omniclimate Skepticism

Alexander Cockburn on Climate Blasphemy

From Spiked-Online: “Intellectual blasphemy – Alexander Cockburn tells spiked that when he dared to question the climate change consensus he was met by a tsunami of self-righteous fury

[…] The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice. This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. […]

The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to public light as a shill for two immense power schemes […] His arguments, many of which are based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part of a political and corporate outlook. […]

Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. […]

Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted […]

This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism […]

Categories
Omniclimate Science

Scientific American's Mauling to Pieces of Nature's Review Process

This will be no news to those that know of the Hockey stick controversy
Nature editors reject peer review process that reduces gender bias

Following a surprisingly unscientific line of reasoning, the editors at the most renowned and prestigious of science journals have rationalized away the need to fix an ailing peer-review system.

Increasing skepticism about the effectiveness and integrity of single-blind peer review—the process by which most academic papers submitted for publication are accepted or rejected—has prompted empirical evaluation of the system.

Standard practice is: reviewers—selected for their expertise and fluency in the chosen discipline—are aware of all authors’ names and affiliations, while authors are kept in the dark about the identity of their reviewers (although some journals allow them to request specific referees).

The growing argument against this lopsided method is that knowledge of authors’ identity—gender, nationality, research institution, level of experience in the field—can (and does) bias reviewers’ opinions on the merit of the research.

The most vocal critics of the current system are those who believe their submissions do not get fair consideration—women, early-career scientists, people with foreign-sounding names—when matched up against authors who sail through the submission process on the status of their lab or the history of their career. And in an environment in which research funding, hiring, tenure, salary, and academic reputation are massively dependent on publishing record, one can easily imagine the ripple effects such a disadvantage would bring. […]