Magic Statistics

“I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies

April 12th, 2006 at 6:57 pm

Catholic Church spotlights the challenge of Islam

Pope Benedict XVI has assumed a more critical stance vis-à-vis Islam than did his predecessor.  He seems more concerned with the challenge Islam poses for Christianity; certainly, he has spoken out strongly against terrorism and in support of religious liberty.  After Abdul Rahman was allowed to flee Afghanistan to safety in Italy, it emerged that the pope played a key role by telephoning Afghan President Hamid Karzai and urging his release.

Further evidence of the Catholic Church's reappraisal of Islam is found in the new issue of Studium, a bi-monthly Italian journal of Catholic culture.  The January-February issue includes a 30-page essay entitled "The Islamic Question" by Roberto A.M. Bertacchini and Piersandro Vanzan.  The latter author, a Jesuit, writes for La Civiltà Cattolica, a magazine closely associated with the Vatican.

Studium's website is entirely in Italian, but a lengthy excerpt translated into English, has been posted at Chiesa, along with introductory remarks by Sandro Magister.  Here are the opening paragraphs from the excerpt:

Islamic terrorism is a rather complex response to the confrontation with the West, which Islam sees as a devastating, deadly threat.

At the end of the 1980’s, there was a pitched battle within the Islamist camp between the positions of Abdullah Azzam and the more extremist positions of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a true ideologue of jihad in the form it has taken today, which includes in the category of enemy the “Herodians,” or those who collaborate with the West. On November 24, 1989, Azzam was assassinated in Peshawar, and Al-Zawahiri had an open field.

For the zealots, everything that comes from the outside is like poison to their traditional ways of life, so they hold that there is only one way to avert cultural catastrophe: expel the invader and hermetically seal off the borders, so nothing can pollute or corrupt their miniature world. This is, in part, the position of Osama Bin Laden, who is opposed to the American presence, not only in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia.

But this defensive program would never work against Western civilization. Unlike all previous civilizations, it is not localized or territorially circumscribed. The pervasiveness of the global village is such that there is only one way to escape its grasp: destroy it. And this is Al-Zawahiri’s ideological program, which he pursues with a complex strategy. For the formula of “modernizing Islam,” he substitutes another: “Islamizing modernity,” and therefore the West.

Within the Muslim world, Islamization means de-Westernizing everything: from political and cultural institutions to economic ones, even to the point of rethinking banking operations. On the outside, it means spreading Islam through vigorous missionary activity, in both Europe and the United States: this activity is supported above all by Saudia Arabia. But according to the most radical interpretations, Islamizing the West means violently attacking its political and economic power, without sparing the civilian population.

This pan-Islamist program might make some smirk, just as many smirked at Hitler before his political ascent. But this is a real program, which is being carried out according to a clear plan, and although it is working slowly, it is producing results.

That this is a real program can be seen in many ways.

The authors then outline six pieces of evidence supporting the proposition that an intentional pan-Islamist campaign against Western civilisation has been underway since at least 1969.

Read the whole thing.

via Dhimmi Watch.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
April 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Lawyers filmed in their natural habitat

Check out this video recorded at a deposition.  Jack McCoy, the defence lawyers, and judges on Law & Order frequently get testy and disagreeable with each other, but at least they use multi-syllabic words.  These guys really get down and dirty.

via Drell's Descants.

Print This Post Print This Post
April 12th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Global-warming scare-mongers rule

Global-warming alarmists are attempting to bolster their cause by focusing on natural catastrophes that could not occur if their climate-change models were right, says Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology at MIT.  Recent severe weather incidents, such as last year's succession of hurricanes in the US and the Paris heat wave of summer 2003, have been trumpeted as effects of global warming caused by human activity.  Global-warming models developed by climate scientists, however, predict that, as global warming proceeds, such events would tend to become less frequent and intense.

[T]hose who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.

Neither do climate change models support the contention that human activity is responsible for the one-degree rise in global temperature observed over the past century.

So, why have unsupported climate claims garnered broad support among scientists?  Dr Lindzen points out that funding devoted to climate research has escalated as alarmist claims have proliferated.  Moreover, a rigid scientific conventional wisdom has developed concerning global warming and scientists who take a different view have been suppressed and shouted down.

In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
. . .
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

One wonders if celebrity and funding have altered the dispassionate scientific perspective of some  climate experts.

Dr Lindzen does not mention Bjorn Lomberg, who was excoriated by the scientific community for his 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist.  Something called the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) conducted a witchhunt investigation of Dr Lomborg and found his book “objectively dishonest” and “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice”.  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed after the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation held its own investigation into the DCSD proceedings. The Ministry found that the DCSD investigation was neither impartial nor scientific and the DCSD subsequently repudiated its original verdict.

The experience of this one courageous individual provides additional support for Dr Lindzen's charge that a rigid, close-minded, and defensive orthodoxy exists in certain areas of environmental science.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
|