SEVEN BIG LIES AND WHY THEY TELL THEM
LIE #1: AGW: global warming and climate change are man-made.
Thirty years ago the Left said were headed into an ice age; now they tell us we're headed into a catastrophic warming. In both cases the fault according to the Left was with industrial First World and the solution was taxes and redistribution.
Redistribution of First World wealth has been a long held goal of the Left. That's why they tell this lie.
LIE #2: The al Aksa Mosque is on the Temple Mount.
Islam in general and Arabs in particular - specifically so-called "Palestinians" - argue that they have a real claim on Jerusalem because of the al Aksa mosque.
ONE PROBLEM: the al Aksa mosque can't have been the one on the Mount as the one on the Mount wasn't built until after Mohamed died. Therefore, the claim is BOGUS. A lie.
Why did they make it up?
To help them achieve their long held goal of eradicating Israel. Anti-Semites think Jews and Israel are more trouble than we're worth.
Those who see Israel-Arab conflict as the key to global jihad must willfully ignore the jihad in Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan. Afghanistan, the Buddhas if Bamiyan, Chechnya, Morocco, Algeria, Kenya, Sudan, Yemen, India and so on. Global Jihad is a primary if not central proactive doctrine of Islam and always has been; it's how Mohamed expanded Islam's reach, and how it grew over the ages: though war and terror.
Sacrificing Israel now - or Afghanistan or Iraq at some point down the road- will no more bring an end to global jihad then giving Hitler Sudetenland ended WW2. In fact. it made Hitler bolder.
If you want MORE global jihad, then pressure Israel to cede to their enemies.
LIE #3: Trade deficits are bad.
The Left essentially argues that every nation has to sell exactly what they buy from overseas.
This is a nutty proposition.
In fact, there is no such thing as a trade deficit. It's a heuristic device invented by anti-trade forces to create a sense of danger from trade where there is NONE. In fact, trade is one of the things which improves living standards.
LOOK AT IT THIS WAY: When a company buys something from... China, let's say, they trade money for goods. It's an even-steven trade, there's no imbalance at all. It matters not how many times it's done; it's always a fair trade without a penny of imbalance. They get money; we get goods.
SO WHY DO THEY LIE? SIMPLE:
If trade is seen as good, then Leftists and unions can't agitate for laws to end trade or stifle it, so they carp about trade deficits and imbalances.
LIE #4: Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and we aren't getting any increased health benefits.
If you want to pay the same price for 1970 healthcare, then you can: just accept 1970 healthcare.
Not interested? You shouldn't be. Health care has improved every DAY for the last 40 years. And our health has too: we live longer now than ever before - AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEFT TELLS YOU, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST CDC STATISTICS, WE LIVE LONGER THAN EUROPEANS. And we have better survival rates for most major diseases. And we don't wait as long for care.
If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. SURE: we could improve our system: cap medical malpractice awards; allow interstate competition for heath insurance; give families the same tax break as businesses. These simple reforms would bring down costs.
The people who want to make healthcare a right really want the government to have the power to control healthcare. But because your health is a PERSONAL matter - and not a public health matter - this is a bad thing for you.
A politician designed, bureaucrat run, taxpayer financed system will not put your well-being ahead of the government's. That's tyranny.
LIE #5: War never solved anything.
Nothing except slavery, nazism, fascism, communism. and jihadism. If you embrace pacifism, then you must be willing to live as a slave under a tyranny.
If you love having your God given rights - and want all your brothers and sisters everywhere to have them too - them you must expect war to be a part of the solution: tyrants don't give up without a fight.
If you want peace at any cost, then you will have peace at the cost of your freedom.
LIE #6 America in not an exceptional country and doesn't deserve any extra respect, power or responsibility in international affairs.
America is the freest, richest, most diverse nation of Earth. We saved the world from tyranny three times, and are leading the battle a fourth time. There is no other nation capable of making this fight.
That's exceptional.
Those who say the USA shouldn't be allowed to treated as exceptional really just don't want us to win. They are not for egalitarianism between nations for abstract reasons; they are on the other side.
LIE #7: Disarmament makes the world safer.
This is tantamount to arguing that gun control - taking guns away from innocent law-abiding people - reduces crime. NO WHERE HAS THIS WORKED. And it's ludicrous to believe that it could. First of all, criminal are gong to get guns anyway. Second of all, law-abiding people with guns are actually a deterrent to crime. Which house will a criminal burglarize, the one marked "UNARMED", or the one marked "PROUD MEMBER OF THE NRA"?
Time after time - throughout history - rogue regimes and rogue nations have proven over and over again that they are not to be trusted with treaties limiting arms. Hitler broke his treaties, North Korea broke her treaties, Iran is breaking hers, now. These rogues are like criminals and shouldn't be trusted to follow the law.
It is folly to willingly disarm as our foes strengthen, - DEADLY FOLLY, AS IT GUARANTEES MORE ADVENTURISM BY YOUR FOES AND MORE CASUALTIES AS A RESULT.
The stronger one appears then the less likely one is to be attacked. The more powerful militarily the West is, the safer we all are.
Those who desire to reduce our strength make us less safe.
BOTTOM-LINE:
THESE HARMFUL LIES ARE AT THE VERY CORE OF THE LEFTIST POLITICAL PLATFORM, AND THAT'S WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THEM AT EVERY TURN.
Thirty years ago the Left said were headed into an ice age; now they tell us we're headed into a catastrophic warming. In both cases the fault according to the Left was with industrial First World and the solution was taxes and redistribution.
Redistribution of First World wealth has been a long held goal of the Left. That's why they tell this lie.
LIE #2: The al Aksa Mosque is on the Temple Mount.
Islam in general and Arabs in particular - specifically so-called "Palestinians" - argue that they have a real claim on Jerusalem because of the al Aksa mosque.
ONE PROBLEM: the al Aksa mosque can't have been the one on the Mount as the one on the Mount wasn't built until after Mohamed died. Therefore, the claim is BOGUS. A lie.
Why did they make it up?
To help them achieve their long held goal of eradicating Israel. Anti-Semites think Jews and Israel are more trouble than we're worth.
Those who see Israel-Arab conflict as the key to global jihad must willfully ignore the jihad in Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan. Afghanistan, the Buddhas if Bamiyan, Chechnya, Morocco, Algeria, Kenya, Sudan, Yemen, India and so on. Global Jihad is a primary if not central proactive doctrine of Islam and always has been; it's how Mohamed expanded Islam's reach, and how it grew over the ages: though war and terror.
Sacrificing Israel now - or Afghanistan or Iraq at some point down the road- will no more bring an end to global jihad then giving Hitler Sudetenland ended WW2. In fact. it made Hitler bolder.
If you want MORE global jihad, then pressure Israel to cede to their enemies.
LIE #3: Trade deficits are bad.
The Left essentially argues that every nation has to sell exactly what they buy from overseas.
This is a nutty proposition.
In fact, there is no such thing as a trade deficit. It's a heuristic device invented by anti-trade forces to create a sense of danger from trade where there is NONE. In fact, trade is one of the things which improves living standards.
LOOK AT IT THIS WAY: When a company buys something from... China, let's say, they trade money for goods. It's an even-steven trade, there's no imbalance at all. It matters not how many times it's done; it's always a fair trade without a penny of imbalance. They get money; we get goods.
SO WHY DO THEY LIE? SIMPLE:
If trade is seen as good, then Leftists and unions can't agitate for laws to end trade or stifle it, so they carp about trade deficits and imbalances.
LIE #4: Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and we aren't getting any increased health benefits.
If you want to pay the same price for 1970 healthcare, then you can: just accept 1970 healthcare.
Not interested? You shouldn't be. Health care has improved every DAY for the last 40 years. And our health has too: we live longer now than ever before - AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEFT TELLS YOU, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST CDC STATISTICS, WE LIVE LONGER THAN EUROPEANS. And we have better survival rates for most major diseases. And we don't wait as long for care.
If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. SURE: we could improve our system: cap medical malpractice awards; allow interstate competition for heath insurance; give families the same tax break as businesses. These simple reforms would bring down costs.
The people who want to make healthcare a right really want the government to have the power to control healthcare. But because your health is a PERSONAL matter - and not a public health matter - this is a bad thing for you.
A politician designed, bureaucrat run, taxpayer financed system will not put your well-being ahead of the government's. That's tyranny.
LIE #5: War never solved anything.
Nothing except slavery, nazism, fascism, communism. and jihadism. If you embrace pacifism, then you must be willing to live as a slave under a tyranny.
If you love having your God given rights - and want all your brothers and sisters everywhere to have them too - them you must expect war to be a part of the solution: tyrants don't give up without a fight.
If you want peace at any cost, then you will have peace at the cost of your freedom.
LIE #6 America in not an exceptional country and doesn't deserve any extra respect, power or responsibility in international affairs.
America is the freest, richest, most diverse nation of Earth. We saved the world from tyranny three times, and are leading the battle a fourth time. There is no other nation capable of making this fight.
That's exceptional.
Those who say the USA shouldn't be allowed to treated as exceptional really just don't want us to win. They are not for egalitarianism between nations for abstract reasons; they are on the other side.
LIE #7: Disarmament makes the world safer.
This is tantamount to arguing that gun control - taking guns away from innocent law-abiding people - reduces crime. NO WHERE HAS THIS WORKED. And it's ludicrous to believe that it could. First of all, criminal are gong to get guns anyway. Second of all, law-abiding people with guns are actually a deterrent to crime. Which house will a criminal burglarize, the one marked "UNARMED", or the one marked "PROUD MEMBER OF THE NRA"?
Time after time - throughout history - rogue regimes and rogue nations have proven over and over again that they are not to be trusted with treaties limiting arms. Hitler broke his treaties, North Korea broke her treaties, Iran is breaking hers, now. These rogues are like criminals and shouldn't be trusted to follow the law.
It is folly to willingly disarm as our foes strengthen, - DEADLY FOLLY, AS IT GUARANTEES MORE ADVENTURISM BY YOUR FOES AND MORE CASUALTIES AS A RESULT.
The stronger one appears then the less likely one is to be attacked. The more powerful militarily the West is, the safer we all are.
Those who desire to reduce our strength make us less safe.
BOTTOM-LINE:
THESE HARMFUL LIES ARE AT THE VERY CORE OF THE LEFTIST POLITICAL PLATFORM, AND THAT'S WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THEM AT EVERY TURN.
39 comments:
Pastorius,
I completely agree with you on all them, except the first one. I've seen ample evidence that man is having an effect on climate.
First of all if CO2 has no effect on climate, how do you explain Venus? It actually has a slightly higher maximum surface temperature than Mercury due to the heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere, despite the fact that Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury. If CO2 does not effect global temperatures, how do you explain that?
In addition, Micheal Shermer is a scientist and a famous skeptic and a libertarian and it hasn't stopped him from accepting the man made climate change theory. He wrote an article entitled "The Flipping Point," in which he talks about what changed his mind. If you doubt his libertarian credentials check out his book, The Mind of the Market. He is hardly someone who advocates massive wealth redistribution.
Pastorius,
By the way, I don't support wealth redistribution policies either.
Damien,
The higher the CO2 levels, the more food their is for plants. That's what plants breathe. It aids in the process of photosynthesis.
Additionally, as you are probably well-aware, the Earth's temperatures have been going down for a decade now.
And, the Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing as is often said. The erroneous reports come from the fact that journalists report on the Northern region where there were record low levels. They ignore the Southern region where there are record high levels.
They also ignore the fact that huge amounts of new ice are forming on the Northern end. The ice is thinner, because it is new. But, more is forming than before.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/03/misleading-reports-about-antarctica.html
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/03/perennial-arctic-ice-cover-diminishing.html
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/uk-daily-express-global-warming-its.html
Hotdog-on-a-stick with Sister-in-Law Man,
Excellent post. It looks like the makings of a book! I will join Damien in not being so fast to agree with the first. Now, would the Kyoto protocols solve the problem? No they would only postpone it by a few years. But, that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I also don't buy your argument on trade deficits. The Opium Wars were started because China would not send us silver. When silver only flows out of our nation, we lose the ability to buy and they gain it. The British sold Chinese citizens opium to get them to disobey their rulers and give us back some silver.
Buying on credit when you're broke doesn't help you (even though you and the cashier both get something you want). At some point, you need a job. Internationally, that job should include making something others want or providing a service they can use. And, no, our job as international shopper is not good enough.
What are the three times we saved the world? World Wars One and Two?
Enjoy tonight!!! CJ
The burden of proof for AGW or whatever you want to call it lies with those who want to impoverish the West and transfer the "wealth" (the true wealth is the innovation and industry of the West, but that is a topic for another day) to the "oppressed."
They have not met that burden. "Science" is not a "consensus" discipline. "Sociology" may be.
There are many, many, many physicists, geographers, geologists, oceanographers, etc. who dispute the "warming" or "change" conclusions drawn from reliance on computer models that do not include water vapor and the influence of the sun, for instance.
They cannot even predict the weather two weeks out. And we are supposed to "de-develop" our entire civilization based on such flawed "science"?
No.
Pastorius,
I knew that plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. That is something I knew since elementary school. I won't deny that higher carbon dioxide levels might lead to more plant growth. But it could still lead to higher temperatures and some other problems.
I also won't deny that the sun plays a role in climate change.
I found that Global warming impact may be overstated to be interesting, it stated,
----------------------------------------------------------------
The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today.
----------------------------------------------------------------
That may present a problem for the theory. However, I've seen science programs that talked about CO2 and climate, as well as the ice sheets shrinking, and I am not talking about Al Gore's movie (Which I have not seen). I've watched several episodes of a show called Naked Science, which talked about man made climate change and the danger of the Ice caps melting. Keep in mind that poking a few holes in a theory won't necessarily be enough to bring it down.
Also, I know of very few scientists that reject the idea that man is playing a role in climate change. I won't deny that they exist, but it seems to me that most people who know what they are talking about in scientific community accept man made climate change. Can you find me, a respected scientist, in the right field, who rejects the idea that humans are playing a role in climate change?
Anonymous,
I'm well aware that science is not a "consensus" discipline. However, just because some people are using climate change as a justification for socialism, says nothing about the truth of the claim that man has an effect on the Earth's climate. Even if we are, would it be an argument for socialism, an economic system that has been an utter failure wherever it has been tried?
Many people have tried to use evolution to justify racism, but that doesn't mean that evolution isn't a scientific fact, or that modern evolutionary science supports racism.
There is no "science" about AGW. There are only opinions forwarded by "scientists" and computer models. Just because a scientist has an opinion does not make that opinion "science" or "scientific fact."
The models are flawed and the faulty conclusions drawn from them are used to justify the de-development of the west.
That is not "science" under any reasonable definition of the term.
They have not met their burden.
Damien,
http://shaankhan.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/no-evidence-carbon-emissions-cause-global-warming/
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/03/japanese-scientists-rejecting-global.html
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/australian-nz-scientists-against-agw.html
Pastorius,
Thanks, I'll check those out.
Pastorius,
By the way, here's someone who I thought was a climate change skeptic,
but apparently is not.
"Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's the best way to live with global warming?"
He does however sound like he is not a big supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Something that I was never really big on either.
Although I don't think Bjorn Lomborg is a scientist, I still know for a fact that there are a lot of good scientists out there who say that the data, confirms man made climate change.
However he is the one who wrote that controversial "Skeptical Environmentalist" book. You can find more information on him and his book, here
Damien,
When I say that the Kyoto protocols would not work, I was thinking of Bjorn Lomborg's work. He does not support many of the environmentalist claims. But I mostly remember his discussion of the Kyoto protocols.
His analysis, I assume based on gathered rather than original work, showed that if all of the Kyoto Protocols were implemented to the letter and IF carbon dioxide caused global warming, if would only retard the onset of the predicted temperature increases by a couple of years.
His model also showed that a total implementation would throw the economy into chaos. Our oil consumption, for example, would have to dramatically decrease. His skeptical point was that we shouldn't throw our economy into chaos over a solution that certainly would not work even if the unproven theory that global warming exists and is man made were true.
By the way. When I heard him speak it was at Cal Tech. Some very competent climatologists are there. No one in the audience stood up to denounce him or his research.
Culturist John,
Of course, you never responded to my personal email on the subject of Global Warming. And, I have to wonder if you read the links I provided Damien here.
Global Warming is bullshit. And being that you and I are the same age, you ought to know that intuitively.
Remember back when we were kids, they were telling us we were entering an Ice Age?
Remember when we were in college and they were telling us we were going to run out of oil by 1989-91?
I have been the victim of constant scare-mongering since I was a child. I used to believe it, until I saw that none of it EVER comes true, and the scientists who promote all these stupid ideas NEVER apologize after the fact.
Pastorius,
I am sorry that I did not return your email on global warming. I don't, to be honest, remember the email. But it is not something I pretend to have expertise in.
And, I tend not to run too much on my instinct when it comes to science. I do recognize patterns. But I think environmental concerns have some merit. Water pollution and the ozone were areas that needed attention, for example.
And, I do buy the skeptical environmentalists argument that a solution to an undetermined problem that creates havoc is a bad idea.
Sorry, but climatology is not my area of expertise.
Pastorius,
I read over those three articles on scientists who reject the idea of man made climate change. But even ignoring everything else, they leave a few important questions unanswered, for one thing, the question about Venus I asked you earlier. If Carbon dioxide, has no effect on climate, why is Venus hotter than Mercury even through its farther from the sun? The only scientific explanation I can think of for Venus being warmer, is that it has a thicker atmosphere made up of green house gases. That planet has been used as an example of the worst case scenario for a run away green house effect for a long time. Many scientists theorize that Venus may have once had a liquid water ocean much like Earth, but it all boiled away as the planet got too hot for liquid water. If any scientists out there who are skeptical of man made climate change have a better hypothesis for why Venus is hotter than the planet closest to the sun, I would like to hear them.
Mercury doesn't have much of an atmosphere to speak of. It is 180 C. And, it is twice as close to the Sun as Venus.
Venus is 400 C. Venus atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of the Earth.
Jupiter which is the fifth planet from the Sun, has a temperature of 153 C. And, it's atmosphere pressure is 22 times that of the Earth.
Mars:
Differing values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars, [9] with a common value being −55 °C.[10] Surface temperatures have been estimated from the Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper data; this gives extremes from a warmest of 27 °C to −143 °C at the winter polar caps. [11] Actual temperature measurements from the Viking landers range from −17.2 °C to −107 °C.
It has been reported that "On the basis of the nighttime air temperature data, every northern spring and early northern summer yet observed were identical to within the level of experimental error (to within ±1 K)" but that the "daytime data, however, suggest a somewhat different story, with temperatures varying from year-to-year by up to 6 K in this season.[12] This day-night discrepancy is unexpected and not understood". In southern spring and summer variance is dominated by storms, which can generate increases of 30 °C; more years are needed (currently 5 Martian years are available) before meaningful statistics can be made.
[edit]Atmospheric properties and processes
[edit]Low atmospheric pressure
The Martian atmosphere is composed mainly of carbon dioxide and has a mean surface pressure of about 600 pascals, much lower than the Earth's 101,000 Pa. One effect of this is that Mars' atmosphere can react much more quickly to a given energy input than can our atmosphere.[13] As a consequence, Mars is subject to strong thermal tides produced by solar heating rather than a gravitational influence. These tides can be significant, being up to 10% of the total atmospheric pressure (typically about 50 Pa). Earth's atmosphere experiences similar diurnal and semidiurnal tides but their effect is less noticeable because of Earth's much greater atmospheric mass.
Although the temperature on Mars can reach above nbk (0 °C), liquid water is unstable as the atmospheric pressure is below water's triple point and water ice simply sublimes into water vapor. An exception to this is in the Hellas Planitia impact crater, the largest such crater on Mars. It is so deep that the atmospheric pressure at the bottom reaches 1155 Pa, which is above the triple point, so if the temperature exceeded 0 °C liquid water could exist there.
So you think the reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere and everything to do with distance from the sun and atmospheric Pressure? Based on what I know, atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun both play a role. However, Just about every science documentary and science book that talks about the reasons for Venus's high temperatures, that I have ever seen, at least partially blames its high temperatures on the fact that its thick atmosphere is made up mostly of CO2.
I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But, it seems the planets with thinner atmospheres have lower temperatures.
Damien,
You said: Just about every science documentary and science book that talks about the reasons for Venus's high temperatures, that I have ever seen, at least partially blames its high temperatures on the fact that its thick atmosphere is made up mostly of CO2.
That's interesting. I'm not a scientist, but let's pretend I am one for a second.
CO2 is a pretty light element, is it not? I looked it up, the atomic weight of CO2 is 44.
Let's compare that to the atmosphere of Earth:
Nitrogen makes up 78% of our atmosphere - it's atomic weight is 14
Oxygen makes up 20% of our atmosphere. It's atomic weight is 16.
.9 percent of our atmosphere is argon. it's atomic weight is 40.
.38 percent of our atmosphere is C02. And, of course, that's 44 atomic weight.
Now, let's look at Jupiter:
Wait, I can't do that. It's too complicated. The further down in the atmosphere you go, it seems, it gets denser and denser and hotter and hotter. Apparently, the lowest layer of Jupiter's atmosphere is 36000 Kelvin.
"The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.[24]"
That's freaking hot.
Yes, it seems to me the density of the atmosphere of a given planet has a lot to do with how warm the planet is.
CO2 is much heavier than oxygen and nitrogen. So adding CO2 will make our planet hotter.
But, the percentage of CO2 that is being added is extremely minute.
It doesn't really add up to this scientist.
Does it to you?
Pastorius,
I just found an interesting article from New Scientist on the subject of climate change,
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
I didn't read the whole thing, however, if you scroll down a little bit, there's another link within the article that attempts to answer your objection that the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere is too small to make a difference.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
They also claim that Antarctica is warming overall despite what some people may say,
Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Damien,
Here's something else to be aware of:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Anonymous,
You wrote,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no "science" about AGW. There are only opinions forwarded by "scientists" and computer models. Just because a scientist has an opinion does not make that opinion "science" or "scientific fact."
The models are flawed and the faulty conclusions drawn from them are used to justify the de-development of the west.
That is not "science" under any reasonable definition of the term.
They have not met their burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to be a bit more hesitant to say there is no science to back something up.
By the way, note my link is from a US Government Science website. Yours is from a magazine called the New Scientist.
Here's something to wonder about. During the years 1998-2008, the entire world economy grew enormously. More oil than ever was being purchased, turned into gasoline, and used by countries like the US, China, and India, especially.
And yet, temperatures have consistently gone down the last ten years.
Additionally, the Antarctic ice pack is growing, not shrinking as "new scientists" will tell you.
Look, you believe they lie about the Jews. Why do you not believe scientists (who would have a vested interest in scare-monger - after all, it brings in more government funding than boring science) would not lie to you?
Pastorius,
I understand that people can be untrustworthy. No one should blindly trust anyone.
But if I'm going to assume that everyone in the science community who accepts man made climate change as a fact, does so for ulterior motives, there is a slight problem.
Than why would I not think that scientists who work for corporations might not have a vested interest and lie to us as well? Including lying about there not being any threat from global warming due to the actions of man?
Also what about free market libertarian scientists who regard man made climate change as a fact? Don't you think it could hurt their political agenda, if it were true, and therefor might they have a vested interest in lying to us and claiming that it was only a myth when they knew it was not?
Damien,
That's a good point.
I'm 46 years old. I remember the coming Ice Age that I was TAUGHT in school from the age of 11.
Didn't happen.
I remember being TAUGHT, it was scientifically true, when I went to college in 1981, that WE WOULD FOR SURE run out of oil for the late 80's to early 90's.
I remember being taught the Malthusian concept that we would overpopulate the Earth and wind up "eating each other like rats in a cage.
I remember being taught that Reagan was going to launch a worldwide nuclear war.
I remember being taught that chemicals were dangerous and every chemical we added to the world would screw up the ecosytem, and yet, during my lifetime, I have seen life expectancy go from about 65 to 80.
I've been TAUGHT many lies by scientists, Damien.
I no longer believe them more than I would believe a talking pile of steaming shit.
Think about the history of science. Think about all the absurd ideas which passed for "knowledge". Today is not that much different.
Think about how stupid the loose ends of String Theory are. One scientist says we live in 13 dimensions. The other is quite sure there are 17.
In the future, for instance, we will view chemotherapy as being as brutal an idea as leeches. Think about it. We overload a body with poison to kill cancer.
Hey, it works better than the alternative.
Here's who I do trust. Geneticists, Biotechnology, Chemists, these people are real physicists, not ivory tower theoretical "Physicists".
Climatology is a fancy word for Ecologist. Ecologists tell us not to burn tundra in Chaparral ecosystems. I live in Souther California. Every year we have terrible fires, because Ecologists don't want us to do controlled burning. Chapparal ecosystems require burning for regeneration.
The Ecologists work against Ecology.
Do I need to go on and on?
Have you studied any of this?
Once again, I think this might have to do with age.
Once you have been lied to over and over and over by "Scientists" you start to realize they are simply people with agendas, whether they be economic, philosophical, religious, or Machiavellian.
Pastorius,
Thanks for being so courteous, you make a good point as well. Maybe what we ought to believe is what ever side we think makes the best case. Than when we have some compelling reason to think that they are lying, than start doubting anything else they say.
In some cases however, even if they are wrong, they may not be entirely wrong. They may just take one or two bad things and blow them way out of proportion.
Or in many other cases it could be that they are just wrong.
However I know that people often lie if they have an agenda, that they think they can support through misleading people. Also some people do lie in order to con other people, as a way of making money. But I can't just live my life assuming every single person around me is always lying to me.
Damien,
You said: In some cases however, even if they are wrong, they may not be entirely wrong. They may just take one or two bad things and blow them way out of proportion.
I say: Yep, I agree. It's hard to absolutely deny that man has any effect on his environment. For God's sake, look at litter and smog.
But, I'm sure you have had the experience of driving away from the city and seeing that most of the world is desolate land, with no smog and very little litter.
We tend to concentrate on what we see. And since most of us live in cities, we see smog and trash.
You said: I can't just live my life assuming every single person around me is always lying to me.
I say: I sympathize with you there. Life is full of illusions. I often do not know what to believe. For a guy who expresses so many opinions as I do, I must admit, I doubt almost everything I write.
:)
That's the Philosopher in me.
Post a Comment