I once heard some celebrity in a sound bite say “The debate is over” when referring to global climate change.
She was correct.
In fact, I will contend that there should never have been any debate in the first place. The climate is changing. It always has been. The only constant in the universe is change, not even Einstein's Cosmological Constant has held up! The Earths climate has been changing since the day Orpheus crashed into it and created our moon, and most likely before that too. The evidence is everywhere. Deserts that have been in our history since the dawn of human civilization were once lush tropical habitats before homo-erectus stood erect. The striations in exposed rock tell the tale of climate change through time in handy-dandy stripes, ready for the casual observer to stop and read the tale.
So why is there debate?
There is only one force known to man that can create debate as powerful, vitriolic and skewed as what has been going on lately.
Politics.
“Green” has become a powerful tool of the politicians. The battle lines have been drawn, every side has taken their positions, and the shots are fired back and forth on a daily basis. Each side claims they are correct. And at present, all of the sides are so entrenched in the data collecting and processing evolution that no accurate data makes it to the surface. For any side. Can you picture a politician of any flavor coming out and saying “OK, we did some independent research and it turns out that man has had no effect on climate change”. Or, “The independent labs of 'Data Only Laboratories' has shown that mankind is speeding global climate change by 15%, which is a contradiction to my previous statements, so I must re-evaluate my position based on this new information.”
Yeah, and Joan Rivers is Au Natural.
The presence of politics in any form of study begins to distort the data instantly. Politicians must constantly justify their existence to the (dumb)masses, and having an enemy to fight against is the easiest way to do so. How many politicians have you heard say “I'm fighting for you!” You can see this dramatically presented both in the movies that have been created supporting the “data' and the responses to those movies presenting data refuting them with each side claiming the other is the enemy and we must stop them.
The politicians distort the data in many ways, sometimes by intentional omission, sometimes with corrupted “scientists”, but most often, they peddle the power they hold to the highest bidder. Adding “scientific research grants” for groups favorable to their “cause” to bills and amendments. This in itself is abhorrent behavior and should be put to a stop, but it does not end there.
Fortunately for those in political positions, a goodly portion of the general public is all to fast to take up arms in this battle. People arguing with other people based upon a cursory understanding of the statistics and charts that are skewed from the start. Many of those people doing the arguing have the belief that the harder they battle, the more they will be rewarded when “their side” wins, adding a zealous fire to their actions. A large portion of this bunch would be hard pressed to even describe the difference between a sedimentary and igneous rock! When presented with raw facts, not filtered through the prism of their “power peddler” of choice, they often resort to attacking the messenger rather than analyzing the data objectively.
This may not be an intentional design by the politicians, but it certainly helps their positional security. So long as the pawns are doing the fighting, the power pieces can remain unscathed behind the lines....”Fly my pretties, FLY!”
While the foot soldiers battle and weaken each other, the political puppet masters gather more and more strings with which to control their subjects..err.. constituents. It is us, the citizens of America (and the world for that matter) that are on the loosing end of this battle. With each piece of “Green” legislation that passes, we loose more of our personal liberty. As “Green” becomes a mandate, by definition, choice diminishes. There are plenty of examples to illustrate this. The 100Watt incandescent light bulb is to be abolished in America soon. Auto manufacturers are being mandated to make “Green” vehicles. Smart Meters are becoming a requirement in some locations. And the most vicious attack on liberty to date, Cap and Trade of carbon emissions. Each of these examples demonstrates just who is winning the debate on global climate change, the very people that started it. By controlling the actions of people in the name of “Green” they achieve the ultimate goal they are after, control of people. With the above mentioned examples you can see the control. People will have to buy a particularr type of light bulb (which happens to be manufactured en masse by a large political campaign doner.) No longer can you shop around for the vehicle you want, you must buy the mandated type regardless of your desire to pursue your own happiness. Mandated to create a vehicle to a certain specification, the true creative engineers will not have the resources to explore greater advances. And in the ultimate slap in the face, you must petition the “almighty controllers of carbon” to allow you to be more productive, your hat in your hand, a humble stature as you beg to produce.
Is it any wonder that on a global level the countries that are already totalitarian and dictatorial, “Green” is not even on their list of things to ponder. They have already gained the control of their populous and do not need a Trojan horse to garner more. Where as in nations of (semi) free peoples, “Green” is being rammed down harder than bitter medicine to a 2 year old.
Control and power, not money, is the currency of those that wish to peddle their influence. Money has no backing when you have the power to attain your goals with coercion and legislation. Money has no influence when you have the power to devalue it on a whim. Each of the players in the struggle for power believes they have the “immunity idol” under their shirt and that they will be safe from tribal vote when the dust settles. In reality, the only name being written on the parchment is “Liberty”. And in the end, the tribe will have spoken and Liberty will be banished from the island of Earth.
So, to prevent this from happening, I invoke the words of Rodney King, “Can't we all just get along?” and direct our resources to the true enemy....”The Power Peddlers”.
As a final thought, if carbon dioxide is exhaled every time we speak, should we be putting a cap and trade on the speeches of politicians?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The thing about all of this is that there not enough scientific data for even a good theory. Meteorological data has only truly been compiled for just over 100 to maybe 130 years, and early on with equipment that could not be considered all that reliable.
ReplyDeleteI won't go so far as to say that humans aren't affecting the planet. We are going through the Earth's resources, steadily and surely, and I'm certainly not against looking for other "cleaner" sources of energy.
But whether the use of those resources is having that much effect on the weather is where I begin to question the whole "Climate Change" argument.
Weather is cyclical, and as stated above, we haven't been keeping data long enough to know whether this isn't a normal occurrence. Odder still, just 35 or so years ago, the concern was whether we were heading into a new ice age.
I agree that many of these mandates being forced upon us are simply scare tactics, and just another way for scare the public into believing anything the government tells us.
As a final thought, if carbon dioxide is exhaled every time we speak, should we be putting a cap and trade on the speeches of politicians?
ReplyDeleteMy proposal: take the number of years a politician has been in office, and subtract 2. Then take the result and multiply it by 12. The result is the weight in pounds of a potted, green, leafy plant that has to be carried around at all times by the politician in question, so that the carbon dioxide has a client, and the yakking becomes carbon neutral.
By my calculations, Robert "Methuselah" Byrd's potted plant would have to weigh 576 pounds this year. Good luck talkin' with that weight in your arms, Bob.