Who knew?
Guess
I am a “corporate toady.” A “villain.” A “traitor.” As evil as someone
who disputes the existence of the Holocaust. Deserving of prosecution
for crimes against humanity. Worse, I am seemingly “impervious to
reason.” A “naysayer” whose days are “numbered.”
Whoa. Call out the Marines. Houston, we’ve had a problem.
DENIERS.
The
new catch word from the eco-fascist, anti-freedom brigade as it ramps
up the statist propaganda machine to discredit anyone with the temerity
to question the “consensus.”
DENIERS.
The
word conjures connotations of Nazi sympathizers, racists, and bigots.
People outside the ken of civilized society. Beneath contempt.
DENIERS.
Reminiscent
of Flat Earth cranks, too blind or ignorant to accept what everyone
else agrees is the truth. A danger to all right-thinking souls.
DENIERS.
Shun them. Shame them. Banish them...
Thompson interviewed DENIER
climatologist Patrick Michaels, though most of his screen time was
eaten up making the point that those who once doubted the existence of
global warming now doubt its alleged catastrophic consequences and/or
the amount that human activity has contributed to any global warming
that is occurring.
Apparently,
though, not immediately accepting the claims of the same group of folks
who once claimed a “consensus” on the imminent appearance of a new Ice
Age (well...there were two movies...) was the essence of irrationality.
Heaven forfend, that anyone should delay judgment until more facts were
in. Scandalous that anyone should cling to the quaint notion that the
burden of proof lies with those making the claim for the existence of
“X.” Narrow-minded of anyone to reject the fallacy inherent in the
“Precautionary Principle” and to understand that proving a negative is
illogical.
Oh,
no. Oh, no. No one is permitted to state that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. Uh, uh, baby. Nah suh. How dare anyone
doubt the regal nature of the Emperor’s clothes? Blasphemy!
The
pro-global-warming guy in the NBC story –– and I do mean “story” ––
atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer (hmm... “atmospheric science”
is apparently more respectable than mere “climatology”) decried the
irrational dolts who, in Thompson’s words, “are confusing the issue and
delaying solutions.”
Omigosh.
“Confusing”
people with scientific objections. Just like that old saying “don’t
confuse me with the facts.” How dare they! Bastards.
“Delaying”
a full-frontal assault on a non-urgent-problem that will cost people
around the globe trillions of dollars for very little effect. Well. Let
me expand on that last bit: even if everyone were immediately coerced
into implementing all the eco-fascists’ wild plans for ending
civilization-as-we-know-it, there would be precious little impact on
any warming of the earth. There would, however, be enormous effects on
the poorest people of the world who are struggling to survive the
out-moded and destructive anti-liberty societies in which they are
stuck. Rich eco-fascists like Al “I-Invented-the-Internet” Gore would
never suffer. Heck. He and his hypocritical ilk would simply “buy”
offsets from others and continue to live lifestyles only the 1% enjoy.
Screw the 99% of the rest of us.
Thompson
made it clear that shadowy and powerful “special interest groups” like
huge ExxonMobil should be chastised for financially supporting DENIERS
like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Why, those SOB oil creeps
gave $16 million (over 7 years; a “whopping” $2 1/4 million per year)
to such freaks. Luckily, that non-interest group, the statist Union of
Concerned Scientists is keeping its sharp eyes on such shenanigans.
After all, anyone who receives any money from “polluters” must not be
granted any credibility.
But,
hey! All the True Believers of Global Warming who receive millions,
maybe billions in stolen, i.e., tax-funded, money are completely
objective in their research, their arguments, and their conclusions. No
way are they ever influenced to shade the evidence or cherry-pick their
data or graphs or exaggerate dangers or engage in anything that could
remotely be considered unfair or false in order to garner more and more
funding on the backs of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen. Nope. Won’t happen.
Can’t happen. Kyoto? God’s Salvation to Mankind. Trading “carbon
credits”? A boon to the environment, not to any nasty ol’ Big Business
Interests that the kind and gentle Friends of the Environment oppose so
reflexively.
Fugettaboutit.
My
goal is not to engage in a tit-for-tat on the various points of
scientific contention regarding this issue. I’ve elsewhere linked to
various sites, plus a simple search will reveal more articles, pro or
con, on this topic than most people would care to read.
For
me, the real bone of contention is not whether some warming is
occurring –– evidence seems to indicate it is –– but whether it is or
will be "catastrophic" (a prospect that seems highly unlikely; some
areas of the planet will suffer, some will benefit; people will adapt
as they always have, whether during an Ice Age or during a period of
greater warmth); whether it is primarily due to human action (most
evidence seems to indicate it is not; the figures I have seen place the
human component well under one-percent, an influence dwarfed by other
forces) or nonhuman, “natural” causes (for example, part of normal
climatic variation); and whether governments are justified in
drastically regimenting people's lives, i.e., increasing government
power and decreasing freedom, in order to deal with global warming
(regardless of the causes or the degree of global warming and
regardless of the positive or negative results of such warming, placing
the responsibility for dealing with the sources and/or consequences of
this phenomenon in the hands of the State would only make matters
immeasurably worse).
For
every well-intentioned advocate who views global warming as a threat to
humanity, I suspect there are many more who hide behind the cover of
the warm-and-fuzzy cloak of “environmentalism” in order to advance
their cause of placing more and more of the earth and more and more
people and their decisions under the direct control of the State. And
let us not forget those eco-fascists who view “humanity” and a
technologically-advanced civilization as blights upon Gaia that must be
curtailed or obliterated so “Nature” can flourish. This sick fantasy
champions a static universe in which “now” is the best of all possible
worlds and in which the only change that occurs is that initiated by
people, which by definition, can only be characterized as “bad.”
The
real “deniers” in this entire brouhaha are those who promote
“consensus” over evidence; who place rocks and bugs over people; who
exalt the power of the State and endeavor to crush the power of the
individual; who seek the stasis of tyranny and death rather than the
dynamics of freedom and life.
If these closet dictators want to paint me as a DENIER, then so be it.
I, for one, DENY the legitimacy of anyone who tries to browbeat me into submission.
I, for one, DENY the methods of those who place the wishes of the “majority” over evidence and science.
I, for one, DENY
the actions of anyone tries to rob me of my rights or my liberty in
what has become a religious crusade rather than a quest for truth.
I, for one, DENY that my life must be subordinated to garbage or global warming or anything “Green.”
