Does it strike you that many of the most evangelical environmentalists are also anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-nuclear types? The type who would wish to curb our freedoms, regardless of any climate problems? Who appear to despise our way of life, while simeoultaneously benefitting from it?
Not the sort of people from whom I would choose to take advice, let alone orders. And yet, and yet, something has elevated them to the position where their whims have become our orders.
Of course, that something is the man-made (anthropomorphic) global warming theory, or AGW. Its official acceptance has been a God-send to every NIMBY, every hippy, every would-be bossy boots and town hall bully in the west. They welcome "green taxes" as ways of forcing us to change our behaviour, to bend to their will.
Many regimes have used mass participation as a method of drumming up support, resigning the masses to their circumstances and brainwashing. Think of the massed rallies beloved of totalitarian states, the Hitler youth, even the Home Guard in the UK. Force/ persuade people to participate and they will eventually accept the situation they are in.
Greens love to see fuel prices increase: we will be forced to drive less and live colder. They love landfill tax: we will be forced to spend our free time participating - sorting through our rubbish. They want councils to collect less often (rubbish that is, not money!), because that forces us to live with our sins for longer. We participate longer in the garbage cycle. They want our bins made smaller, and even weighed, to make us think, worry and then buy into their philosophy, or at least feel too helpless to resist.
That is their motivation, as it seems to me, but what was the motivation to make this accepted as the official theory?
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make your point well. There are a lot of foolish people who accept the science about AGW. But there also are a lot of intelligent people. I think you can distinguish between scientifically untrained people who accept the concept for ideological reasons and others who have studied the science and are convinced because of it. That is, there are political environmentalists and scientific ones. As it turns out, the political ones oppose practical solutions and insist on using solutions that have no chance of alleviating the danger climate change poses.
ReplyDeleteAlthough politically-oriented people try to distort science to suit their purposes, science is apolitical and it just comes out the way it does. Your and my aversion to certain viewpoints isn't an argument against the conclusion that global warming is a real threat.
If you like, we can discuss the evidence. I've posted the best information I could find at Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed.
Well, sure enough. I mistyped the address. Please try Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, Red Craig.
ReplyDeleteI understand you saying that 'science just comes out the way it does'. I believe the same thing.
Science though, is not some disinterested, hobbyist pastime as it may have been in centuries past.
There are more 'scientists' than there are posts for them. They effectively have to audition for funding; wages and money to operate. Like artists, they have to compete for commissions.
If they are commissioned to look for evidence of AGW, and they fail to find it, they have failed.
As so much of this is so new, so 'cutting edge', so experimental, and the desire of the paymaster is so great, and we live in an ever changing climate.......
There are signs of climate change everywhere, dating from the present back to millions of years ago.
Ipso facto, he who controls the purse-strings, controls the science. He who controls the science, controls society.
In this case, I'm not discussing just climate specialists, though obviously that's the most important group to which we have to give attention.
ReplyDeleteBut you don't have to be a specialist to sort through the evidence. The voting public will, in the end, have to decide policy. So it's necessary for all of us to educate ourselves and look at the facts.
The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they can't be proven to be either true or false. We can't dismiss them as untrue just because they can't be proved, but we can't believe them just because they can't be disproved.
What we can say is that James Hansen isn't in need of money. He could retire comfortably or focus on his university work.
I think it's more effective to look at the evidence and not decide these things on the basis of unprovables.