Are we living under shadows on the clouds?
How can the idea of scientific consensus of opinion about global warming have meaning when a self-interested government with the power to destroy our futures is spending our money to find answers it wants to hear to problems that doesn’t exist?
We can forget about the last polar bears stranded on the last chunk of ice in the Arctic. Are we the Walrus: simple-minded fools on a hill looking at reality through a glass onion.
What good are two sides to an argument when the government has already taken sides and just can keep changing the rules to stay in the game. Take for example an exchange of opinions between two scientists in October 2009, as follows:
Kevin Trenberth: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. The future projections are for much more warming, but with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years.”
William Gray: “It is by no means clear that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 and last 100 years is due primarily to human-induced CO2 rises. The globe experienced many natural temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution. How do we know the recent warming is not due to one or a combination of many natural changes that were experienced in the past? There is no way Dr. Trenberth or anybody else can, with any degree of confidence, say that future global warming may be a hundred times faster than anything we have seen in the past. This is pure conjecture.”
Did Trenberth really believe what he said when he said it? What we do know for sure is that Trenberth said exactly what the government and the UN-IPCC wanted to hear. Trenberth is the very sort of person the government sends to the UN-IPCC to determine whose opinions shall be heard and what contrary opinions are to be considered invalid. And yet, Trenberth knows today that his statement above was wrong in October 2009. Trenberth is now saying we can’t find the heat but he still believes — he just knows — the heat must be there, beyond our abilities to find where it’s hiding and measure it.
Should a consensus of opinion among scientists on the advisability of abandoning the scientific method altogether in other areas outside the science of climate change be considered? How about in medicine or in aeronautics or economics?
There was a time when we would brand as intellectual dishonesty the spreading of unfounded fears about runaway global warming in the nation’s classrooms and yet teachers and bureaucrats in the government-education complex have been doing that for years. When after a while it was obvious to the teachers of global warming that they were wrong they simply changed their stories. Today, proponents of AGW theory simply point to natural disasters as evidence of man-caused climate weirding. That is what now passes for science in today’s classrooms.
Obviously, we have lost something important. We used to believe a big part of growing up was to discover that that every idea we and everyone else can think of is not necessarily a good idea. Thousands of years of human societal and cultural evolution have taught us that some ideas are better than others. Science grew to be a useful tool to better help us understand how some of our beliefs were not true at all. Now, we have a government that is too big and getting bigger. The government has a lot of ideas that are not good and for that reason they are the first to exempt themselves from the consequences of these bad ideas that they have no problem burdening the rest of us with.
Climate change research is just one example of spending billions of dollars on filing cabinets full of junk science about how to fill a hole in the ocean. We could have benefited greatly by keeping our own hard-earned dollars to spend as we see fit and paying off our debts. Instead, these dollars have been stripped from our economy and used to provide nothing of value in return. Our taxes are only being used to feed a ravenous and insatiable secular-socialist government bureaucracy grown too big to fail.
Our tax dollars are being used to fuel a Government-Education Climatism Machine that makes up stories about a non-existent scientific consensus about the non-existent problem of non-existing global warming while ignoring conflicting information, demonizing serious scientific skeptics, bastardizing the language to make it dance to whatever the latest propaganda shall be, and counting on the intellectual laziness of an idle and brain-dead entitlement society to look the other way when Western academia and Al Gore, their King of Global Warming, prance around with no clothes yelling, fire!
You would think everyone would see the use of government-funded propaganda for political purposes as anathema to basic principles of scientific reason and individual liberty. It should be alarming even to global warming alarmists that the EPA can be used for Leftist revolutionary purposes like defining CO2 as a pollutant so that everything we do can be regulated with impunity.
We need to engage in an overhaul of the language. Everything we the taxpayer subsidize — that contributes no value to society whatsoever — should be called out for what it is: social welfare. And, when the day comes we see that as a society we are not even getting ‘social welfare’ in return for our GIFT, we need to put our money elsewhere.
Continued funding of the EPA, for example, has become nothing more than an example of another failed social welfare program. Continued funding of the EPA should be seen as nothing more than a GIFT to government bureaucrats who will openly use executive power to push the failed ideology of Euro-communism in America.
The example of the Left teaches us,
just steer clear of the brown acid,
if you don’t want to wake up with a tattoo,
and Hepatitis C, or… worse!
“Take Al Gore, who is sort of the chief propagandist. I think for him it really is a religion. He has this unshakable belief that it’s his mission to spread the gospel of global warming according to Al. So there’s nothing I can do about that. His film is a brilliant piece of work. It looks wonderful when you see it. The fact is of course that the pictures don’t actually prove what he’s saying is true.” ~Freeman Dyson