#1.
The science is not persuasive.
I am not a
scientist, nor have I conducted any personal studies on climate (and neither
have you), so I’m not going to presume to put forth a lengthy, comprehensive
analysis of the science and theories relating to man-induced “climate change.” What’s most compelling to me are the
unanswered criticisms to the assumptions, methodologies and conclusions of the
believers. Sweeping predictions and
conclusions have been made based on a fraction of a sliver in time, that fact
is indisputable. Computer modelings that
require assumptions on a wide range of variables form the basis for far-reaching
conclusions in an industry that often struggles to accurately predict next week’s
weather. But perhaps the most compelling
reason to question the conclusions of the believers with respect to the science
is their failure or refusal to adhere to accepted scientific methodology.
Proven or
accepted science has an established protocol in the modern world, namely the “scientific
method.” Under the scientific method you
form a hypothesis based on observations and then you test the hypothesis to see
if it stands up. Scientists have been
testing their theories on what was first man-made global warming (now “climate
change”) for years now, and they’ve made predictions based upon their theories
and computer models. Their predictions have not come to pass.
According to the methodology this means the theory failed and the next
step should be to revise the theory. Instead
the believers simply changed the terminology from “man-made global warming” to “human-induced
climate change.” Something is amiss if
you don’t question the science based on that fact alone, which brings me to
point #2.
#2.
“Science” should not be ideologically or culturally driven.
Something is
clearly wrong when a debate that is ostensibly rooted in science just happens
to be strongly divided along party or ideological lines. That kind of coincidence doesn’t happen in a world
where people are being objective and open-minded, as real science requires us to be, and I find it astonishing that
people – the investigative news media types in particular – have shown such
little interest in understanding this phenomenon when it undoubtedly goes to
the heart of this debate. To the extent
that it is brought up, moderators incorrectly ascribe moral equivalence (the ‘Right’
doesn’t believe the science because it doesn’t care about the environment; the ‘Left’
believes the sciences because they do care about the environment). We can debate all day about who is ignoring
or manipulating science for the sake of ideology, but the bottom line is that
the burden of proof lies with those who put forth the theory. That’s how real science works. In the years since this debate began I have
not heard a single liberal/democrat ever
question the validity of the science despite the criticisms described above
(and I’m sure there are yet more criticisms that I missed). That none would express even the least bit of
skepticism in the face of valid criticisms defies all logic and points to
motives that have nothing to do with science.
To quote an astute and anonymous blogger: “You
probably wouldn't be the brightest crayon in the box if you blindly accepted
every scientific theory that was ever announced.”
#3.
The unconcealed hypocrisy of the “climate change” alarmists.
If a man implores
his wife to be more frugal because he’s worried about their finances but then
he continues to spend like a drunken sailor on himself, what would a reasonable
person deduce about the sincerity of his concerns? Do you really need time to think on that?
We are
continually scolded and lectured to by people like Barack and Michelle Obama,
Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, left-leaning billionaire businessmen and leftwing
Hollywood celebrities whose clear but unspoken message is, “Do as I say, not as
I do.” The enormous and ever-expanding
carbon footprints of these people can only mean that they either don’t believe
a word of their alarmism or that the whole point is to control the rest of
us. There can be no other explanation.
#4.
From “Global Warming” to “Climate Change:” The conveniently evolving
terminology.
This one
requires no explanation.
#5.
The falsehoods.
Supportable
scientific theories don’t require the doctoring of statistics or collusion over
the message. Enough said.
#6.
The Left’s insistence that “The Debate is Over!”
Seems like
every day I open a newspaper only to see people declaring that the debate over
the earth being flat is “over,” or that the debate over the theory of
relativity is “over.” NOT. No one feels the need to repeatedly remind us
that the debate on these theories is over because those debates truly are
over. The fact that the man-made climate
change alarmists have taken to interrupting the ongoing debate to declare that “The
debate is over!” proves two things: (1)
That they’ve failed to definitively
prove their case with science (in which case the debate really would be over);
and (2) that they intend to illegitimately usurp the power of the government
that belongs to ALL of us in order to push for policies that only they support.
I’d also
like to point out the absence of any real-time, one on one debate, which I find
incomprehensible given the fanatical dedication some profess to have in this
supposedly looming crisis. People who
are confident in their positions generally relish the opportunity for serious
debate, they don’t run from it.
#7.
The proposed “solutions” don’t actually resolve anything other than the
perceived problem of our wealth and prosperity.
The one
thing the “alarmists” and “deniers” agree on is that all of the proposed regulatory
changes to ostensibly combat the effects of human-induced “climate change” will
have little to zero chance of reversing it, yet it will impose enormous costs
on Americans. This is true regardless of
whether you believe change can’t be effected because humans are not the source
of changes in the climate or because you honestly acknowledge that we make up
just a small part of the globe and without a worldwide, cooperative effort
(which we are never going to get, by the way) we stand no chance of impacting
the climate just through our own efforts.
The economic realities are why the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the entire senate when first proposed in the
1990s (that’s correct, not even a single Democrat bought into it). Given the absence of measurable warming over
the past 17 years and other indications that the theories on “climate change”
don’t add up, it would be nothing short of economic insanity to allow ourselves
to be shackled by what the “experts” on the Left (i.e. politicians) are trying
to harness us with.
#8.
I possess common sense.
Over the
decades we’ve witnessed the frantic ringing of alarm bells over many things
that didn’t ultimately pan out, including fear of “global cooling” which is well-remembered
by skeptics but apparently forgotten by the current set of alarm-bell ringers. Common sense would thus dictate that we
proceed with caution, particularly when our economic security is involved. Furthermore, when someone has a reputation
for dishonesty, which the Left most definitely does (“If you like your plan you
can keep your plan!”) common sense demands that you be wary of what they’re
trying to sell. Follow the motives.
˜CW
No comments:
Post a Comment