Is Global Warming an Ethically Defensible Version of Fact?

Reflect Reflections

Infinitesimally Remote Though It May Be…

Most of the world’s energy is from fossil fuels. Raising prices of oil, coal and natural gas to limit their use would have an obvious result. Climate action through increased energy costs will likely harm the poor the most, both in rich and poor countries. ~Testimony of Bjorn Lomborg

Eliminating the use of cheap energy has a predictable outcome. The more expensive energy becomes the more poverty there will be. Simply put… it is difficult if not impossible to dramatically reduce CO₂ emission growth without also reducing economic growth. (See, ‘Testimony,’ Ibid)

Your taxes and the power of government are being used today to help the Left sow the seeds of poverty around the globe. And, it’s all legal. Would they nuke Africa to eliminate the threat of Ebola in the West?

The Committee’s research demonstrates that oftentimes EPA contributes to the bottom line of green groups through grants. Accordingly, a grant from EPA or another government agency is particularly valuable to a 501(c)(3) as nonprofits are required to obtain one-third of its funding from the public to maintain its tax-exempt status. A grant from EPA contributes to that goal, without limitation.~Left-Wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ Using Environmentalism to Control Economy

Out in the open what we see is the Left’s attack dog ad hominem warfare against conservatives, ostensibly to limit CO2, which they refer to as climate pollution. But hidden from public view a ‘Billionaires Club’ of geo-Leftists are in secret, trying to take over the American economy.

While it is uncertain why they operate in the shadows and what they are hiding, what is clear is that these individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund. (See, ‘Billionaires Club,’ Ibid)

 Using your taxes, fear of global warming is being used to consign humanity’s future to the whims of anti-industrialist, Leftist-inspired liberal Utopians in Ivory Towers. The schoolmarms of climatism, undermine society and the economy as they whistle past the graveyard of their failed global warming doomsday prognostications.

 Sometimes their messages are rational-sounding and are all dressed up in objective-looking graphs and mathematical models as they take public dollars to create a vision of a future world that none of us will ever see. That is the kinder and gentler form of Leftist propaganda. At other times, we’re back to images of polar bears falling from the sky and studies showing it is our health and not that of polar bears that is about to come crashing down in dead heaps on concrete streets as a result of global warming.

These new and improved Climatists are a part of the world we will live in now. The EPA is as hard to escape as the IRS. And, whatever happens to polar bears and our personal health, there is always plenty of room in the Left’s message of climate doom for finger-pointing at every weather-related disaster that comes along. But, no matter what the approach may be, the Left is saying just one thing: we need more not less government in our lives.

The language of us moderns has never been more shrill. Academics, Leftists and liberal Utopians are beginning to sound a lot like priests chanting in ancient tongues at their religious altars. Can it ever make sense to say–e.g., the IPCC’s promotion of academia’s ‘hockey stick’ is a, remotely ethically defensible version of truth? Or, does our trust in Leftist government, academia and the Eurocommies, really require a willing suspension of disbelief?

You could call it a fundamental problem that the government global warming scientists have: lack of trust. But, when did people start trusting the government? That never happened, which points to the real problem: trust has nothing to do with it. We’re dealing with the 47% who out of self-interest support the government irrespective of truth.

Through a series of case studies, this report exposes the most politically active donors, explains how they use loopholes in the tax law to funnel tax deductible contributions to far-left environmental activist, and details how those activists turn the “investments” into political results. Moreover, the report uncovers the shocking lengths wealthy liberal donors are willing to take to hide their involvement in the scheme. Finally, the report shines a light on the alarming reality that unknown foreign investors are financing the environmental movement, using the shady Sea Change Foundation as cover. (See, ‘Billionaires Club,’ Ibid)

Having the courage to do nothing is difficult for those who are paid to look useful. But, the more we learn about the non-problem of global warming the more we also see that those who have been ringing the alarm bell the loudest are the very people we should never look to for guidance. It’s impossible to make good decisions about anything with a bunch of paid-for know-it-alls who make up facts and fly around the globe like chickens with their heads cut off, point fingers and blaming those who provide value to society for burning up the world.

… just by trying to reduce burning fossil fuels–doesn’t mean you’ve got rid of the risk. Merely means you are taking different kinds of risk. They could be worse. It could very well be that the welfare of the planet would be damaged by reducing carbon dioxide. We just don’t know. ~Freeman Dyson

 

 

Advertisements

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is Global Warming an Ethically Defensible Version of Fact?

  1. Eric Simpson says:

    Eliminating the use of cheap energy has a predictable outcome.

    Yeah, it will increase poverty worldwide. For those that got money, it will reduce incomes across the board. But worse still, for those that got money, expensive and limited energy will curtain innovations, will put a serious muffle on the dreams mankind, including on medical innovations related to extending the quality and longevity of our lives. How does it reduce these innovations that will perhaps dramatically extend our lives? Because it is likely that the resources will simply not be available to pursue these innovations.

    But this all consistent with the left’s desire to cut humans populations and perhaps Small Pox “back into the wild.” Just like the huge aggressive Canadian (non-native) wolves that they’ve released into Idaho, and supposedly the wolves are making their way down toward California where they were also never native and will put a crimp in hiking and recreational activities in CA: http://unexplainedmysteriesoftheworld.com/archives/giant-wolf-epidemic-huge-packs-of-giant-canadian-gray-wolves-are-terrifying-idaho-residents

  2. magnocrat says:

    Generally speaking those who don’t want the world to change are those who enjoy the best of it and those desperate for change are those who suffer the worst of it. Evidence of catastrophe is used by both groups, the first to prevent change, the second to effect change. In a curious sense the validity of the evidence is irrelevant.

Comments are closed.