By Howard Hyde
Climate Change hysteria is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon a gullible American public, and the worst perversion of Science since Josef Stalin had all scientists exiled or shot who dared to disagree with his agronomist stooge Trofim Lysenko, a policy that resulted in the starvation of millions of Soviet citizens when the Socialist theory of Agronomy turned out not quite to agree with the realities of Nature.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, along with Al Gore, Barack Obama, the <sigh!> Pope, and our own congressman Ted Lieu (successor to Henry Waxman in California's 33rd district), are doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on the narrative that Climate Change is the single greatest threat to our civilization, indeed our very lives. This they say with a straight face while Radical Islam is ascendant as never before from Baghdad to Paris, while our cities are burning, race relations, employment and entrepreneurship are all at their lowest levels in two generations, enemies don't fear us, friends don't trust us, Israel is once again is under existential threat, and the Rule of Law and the supremacy of the Constitution have never been hanging by such a thin thread. They say that they know with absolute certainty that Climate Change will kill us all, even while the term itself is a cop-out, a hedge, a punt, just in case the real problem turns out not to be global warming but an incipient ice age, as was the 'settled' scientific consensus of 40 years ago.
And what are we supposed to do about this threat, according to the 'experts'? Why, destroy western civilization of course. Destroy capitalism, destroy free markets, restrict freedom, regulate industry, raise taxes, swear off the cheapest energy sources that generations ago saved the whales from extinction and allowed millions of people who otherwise would have starved, to thrive.
Indeed, that is the word that those of us who live in districts where a majority of our liberal friends have drunk the Kool-Aid, need to deploy in challenge to everything that they say.
Seriously? The greatest threat to our lives?
Seriously? There is no doubt, in spite of the fact that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years? In spite of the repeated failure of the 4-D computer video game models even to predict the weather accurately for one year?
Seriously? A settled scientific consensus based on government funding of research, where scientists who don't toe the party line are sent to the Gulag?
Seriously? Carbon dioxide, which makes plants flourish, is now a pollutant?
Seriously, out of a thousand factors in a system a million times more complex than the stock market, just one is the key to it all, to the exclusion of all others?
Seriously? The solution is to make energy as expensive as possible? To kill endangered birds with ineffective, ugly, land-guzzling wind farms? To make poor people cut down trees or freeze to death because they can't afford heating fuel at prices imposed by your solution?
Scientific authority, Seriously? What authority did Copernicus bow down to with his theory of the sun at the center of the solar system? What consensus was Einstein appealing to when he blew up the Newtonian system of physics with Relativity? What significant advance in Science was ever made by appeal to consensus or obedience to authority? Shall we return to the Golden Age of Medieval Times?
The greatest threat to western civilization is the willingness of the most prosperous and free people who have ever lived on Earth to flush down the biofuel toilet everything that made their own freedom and prosperity possible.
Write to HHCapitalism@gmail.com
I'm sorry, But I think our party loses support and legitimacy when we deny climate change. I think that that then affects our ability to get out the message to younger generations about our founding principles of limited government and personal responsibility; of a strong military and a strong national identity; of free markets.
That being said, we need to stop debating climate change I'm terms of existence and just debate climate change initiatives from the perspective of fighting back big government.
Again, the more and more denialism we employ, the more we lose the younger generation. The older generation is near the end, and we need the younger generation. Based on the description of this article, this seems to me to be more of the same thing--damaging to the image and legitimacy of our party.
As fellow conservatives, I think we need to speak up when we more than believe and actually know when something hurts more than helps our message.
There is more to the electorate than the base.
Please take this message from someone who is considered "extremely far right" by his friends, even the conservative ones.
Thanks. Have a good day.
[Howard:] We do not deny that climate is changing; it changes all the time. What we absolutely deny is that there is any certainty that the industrial human civilization's burning of fossil fuels is the cause, or even a significant cause; or that if the planet were to warm, it would be an unmitigated disaster. What is catastrophic is to destroy the foundations of western democracy and prosperity in pursuit of an unfounded goal.
I certainly understand the difficulty of reaching a younger generation that has not only been indoctrinated by our public schools and teachers' unions into the leftist view of the world, but has been rendered almost incapable of critical thinking. But that is a social and political challenge that does not alter facts or scientific logic.
You have not challenged me on the scientific merits, only on the politics.
[G.R:]I'm no fan of teachers unions or the bias I see in the social sciences, however it's honestly a hard sell for me to believe that the objective courses (math and science) can be biased. To the best of my understanding, global warming has been widely accepted by respectable scientists--so I ask what do you mean by scientific facts and logic, when the worldwide scientific community accepts this claim? Can scientists be biased? Yes. But their reports, required to follow the scientific method and submitted through extensive peer review and replication? As I said it's a hard sell...
That's why I say we should focus on attacking individual pieces of legislation rather than the science. Because only the public is debating this, the scientific community--from what I know--is not.
[Howard:] You are correct, it IS hard to believe that objective science and mathematics, with its rigorous methodologies and peer review processes, could be corrupted. But they have been, which is why this scandal is so outrageous. Leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia have exposed bias against dissenting scientists, and falsified readings of primary data by the U.S. government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) have been exposed.
Jim Enstrom is a physicist and professor with a 40-year career track record. He was fired from UCLA when his research did not reach the conclusions pleasing to the political establishment of the university. He only got his job back after filing a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The IPCC is not a scientific body; it is a political one, with a one dimensionally defined mission, taking anthropogenic global warming as assumed. Al Gore and Barack Obama are not scientists. It has been pointed out that a plurality of the most prominent leaders of the Climate Change alarmism movement do not have degrees in the sciences, but in English Literature.
I refer you to Australian geologist Ian Plimer, author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, and a co-author of Climate Change: The Facts: "We derive scientific evidence from measurement, observation, and experiment...Computers do not generate evidence: they analyse evidence that should have been repeated and validated...Scientific theory...must be in accord with other validated evidence from diverse sources...Unlike in law, there is no inadmissible evidence in science...On the basis of new evidence, scientists must always be prepared to change their opinions...It is skepticism that underpins science, not the comfort of consensus.”
“The theory of human-induced global warming is not science because research is based on a pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and the analytical procedures are treated as evidence. Furthermore, climate ‘science’ is sustained by government research grants. Funds are not available to investigate theories that are not in accord with government ideology."
Please don't take any of this as not welcoming your comments. To the contrary, you have opened my eyes to very important perceptions, for which I am grateful.
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click: