Science is the new “old” religion. When it comes to climate hysteria, there is dissention in the ranks, and the price for heresy can be great.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
I often marvel at the faith placed upon scientific findings. Here we have imperfect humans making projections and observations, and we blindly obey the dictates of their modern priesthood. Could there be different messages from their inerrant oracles?
The consistent message fed to me throughout my educational experience from the 1970’s to the present is that we have ONLY 20 years of clean water, clean air, fuel, forests, space for overpopulating and polluting humans, endangered species, etc. Like religious zealots who wear sandwich boards up and down a bar-crawl street, the end has been constantly predicted with startling accuracy to the exact second of imminent doom. As that false deadline passed without the devastating fruit, the time of apocalypse is simply erased and moved back. There is no difference today. The psychics of destruction now say that your and my car is causing massive global devastation via “Global Warming.”
The problem is not only that this premise is very possibly false, but also that there is no room for dissenting evidence. The linked article describes the process by which the current papal scientific elite squash dissent from within the temple:
"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift… Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited.""
This is not at all unusual. I remember writing for a college paper and submitting a stunning piece of work about how men should not have to pay child support because they have no say in whether a fetus comes to term. If they have no right to prevent abortion, I argued, they should not be forced into responsibility for the pregnancy. Although this is not a position I agree with, I posited it to point out the hypocritical absurdity of the current abortion legality in this country. Fathers are forced to stand in the dark while the female makes 100% of the life or death decisions for his fetus. When I brought this paper to the editor, she refused it saying it was without interest. Why? Well, in her pro-choice opinion, the public was done with abortion debates. Interesting, she suppressed a pro-life paper as without interest when the laws where in the favor of her pro-choice position!
The same is happening now as junk science rules over the information that is allowed under “peer review.” How long can people submit meekly to this doom-saying clergy? As long as the lay folk do not critically review the motives behind the conclusions. When the voices hate and despise the Western culture, particularly America, then you can safely place their conclusions in the “dubious at best” category.
So is there global warming?
"… three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred."
There you go. Making inauspicious claims as to the source and impact of observable datum is purely from a scientific liberal community who hates America and wants to change our outlandish lifestyle. My take is simple. Consider the source (and more importantly, the motive of the source). And continue to drive your car and to take regular baths, please!
Posts
