If global warming wasn’t bullshit, I would support doing whatever was necessary to prevent it from happening. Fortunately, I am highly skeptical of the theory of man made global warming. I like to use the analogy of a meteor heading towards earth. If a meteor called “climate change” was heading toward the earth we would do everything in our power to prevent that meteor from striking this planet. We would send up rockets or solar sails to redirect that meteor and prevent disaster. What should be the response of a rational person, if the government announced a planet killing meteor was heading toward earth and their solution was to force every American to buy meteor insurance? A rational person would recognize this “solution” as bullshit and refuse to entertain further ramblings from such charlatans. Sadly, the majority of the earth’s population has bought into the global warming charade.
According to “climate change experts” like Al Gore’s hero, James Hansen, cap and trade, which is intended to “limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial level,” would not limit CO2 production enough to prevent the rapid melting of the ice sheets that he has warned about. If supporters of climate change aren’t willing to support the drastic solutions needed to prevent disaster, then they must not really believe that disaster is as imminent as they claim.
It should be no secret that certain people stand to benefit from the belief that global warming is real and a threat. The global warming theory translates into greater resources for climate scientists, legislation that could make individuals and governments richer, and voter support for political parties that align themselves with those perpetuating the man made global warming theory. If those who perpetuate the theory of man made global warming propose solutions that don’t solve the problem, but do benefit those perpetuating the theory, skepticism is the rational response.
If global warming was real, and such a dangerous threat, then shouldn’t AT LEAST ONE of the plans advocated by the governments of the world actually stop global warming? If we had evidence that there was real global warming that would threaten the survival of humanity, who among us wouldn’t advocate solutions that would stop or reverse global warming? Instead politicians and scientists advocate programs that would not stop the global warming threat, but would massively redistribute wealth while increasing the coffers of those in power. Why would they do such a thing? Why would they pass legislation for meteor insurance, instead of stopping the meteor?
There is now significant evidence that most people think the world revolves around them. People are so self centered and certain of their own supremacy that they believe they have greater influence over the climate than a thermonuclear fusion powered ball of energy that is composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, yet accounts for 99.8% of our solar systems mass. It takes a “special” kind of person to ignore a giant fusion powered ball of energy that could hold 1.3 million earths inside it and assume that man is the likely cause of a phenomenon that has been taking place longer than human beings have existed.
If I was a less trusting man, I would say that the real agenda behind global warming hysteria is clear and rooted in political opportunism. Politicians know that fear is the most effective tool for getting people to approve really horrible legislation. They use the dire “predictions” of “climate scientists” to scare people, motivate voters, and raise large amounts of money. The scientists in turn realize that they are dependent on government funding for their research budgets and act accordingly. The incentive for scientists to make worse case scenario predictions is significant. If a scientist said, “my research shows there is no danger and, as a result, there is no need for further research” he’s out of a job. If you don’t think this influences scientists, you’re naive.
Climate science is far from a “hard” science. As someone who was educated and trained as a social scientist I can attest to the difficulty of establishing predictive models when dealing with a large number of variables. Complex human behavior is especially difficult to predict in the aggregate due to the high number of variables and their sometimes transitory nature. The number of variables that influence the earths climate is astounding. Air current patters, water current patterns, variance in the radiance of the earths surface, clouds, human activity, plant activity, solar activity, electromagnet forces and the effects of shifts in/on those electromagnetic forces. In short the variety of potential factors is truly breathtaking in scope and “climate science” is an extremely young field of research. Do we react like frightened children to perceived dangers or do we act as rational beings before we drastically change our way of life, that has brought us to this proud point in our evolutionary process? I choose the latter and I do so soberly. I love this planet because it has been the vehicle for our human civilization, but I will not fall subject to a new religion that is rooted in fear and ignorance.
Cross Posted at The Anticrat