The secular progressives or as
some say, the left have again aired their diminished capacity, which should prohibit
them from leading anything, specifically a nation. Is not the central line of reasoning supporting
"climate change" that of scientific “consensus"? First, where is
the consensus? It appears that politics have overshadowed science. Reality:
there is no consensus.
Second, there have been numerous cases in the not too distant past where an empirical conclusion among scientists was touted as bank-on-it truth, but which later, after further examination, proved to be dead wrong. As with climate change, politicians and editorialists told us we had to accept the conclusions, related costs and possibly even diminished lifestyles to save the planet. After all, these were scientists and were thought by many to be as “close to God as secularists get.” In the 70’s were we not told that there was a scientific consensus that the world faced a new Ice Age because of Global Cooling?
In the early 80’s was there not "scientific consensus" that acid rain caused by electricity generating plants fueled by coal and emitting sulfur dioxide was destroying vast acres of forests and lakes in the eastern U.S. Ten years and millions of tax dollars later, an assessment program study essentially concluded; acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems.
Is climate change like believing in magic? Looking back over the last fifty years or so, the reliability of climate science is somewhat mystical. Judging by real statistics, biased opinions, fifty years of failed scientist consensus predictions and looking at those who stand to gain immense wealth from perpetrating this mystical doctrine, I conclude, it might just as well be magic or cabalism. Climate change is no more than a money maker for a few who desire to subjugate a population with unsubstantiated science.
Second, there have been numerous cases in the not too distant past where an empirical conclusion among scientists was touted as bank-on-it truth, but which later, after further examination, proved to be dead wrong. As with climate change, politicians and editorialists told us we had to accept the conclusions, related costs and possibly even diminished lifestyles to save the planet. After all, these were scientists and were thought by many to be as “close to God as secularists get.” In the 70’s were we not told that there was a scientific consensus that the world faced a new Ice Age because of Global Cooling?
In the early 80’s was there not "scientific consensus" that acid rain caused by electricity generating plants fueled by coal and emitting sulfur dioxide was destroying vast acres of forests and lakes in the eastern U.S. Ten years and millions of tax dollars later, an assessment program study essentially concluded; acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems.
Is climate change like believing in magic? Looking back over the last fifty years or so, the reliability of climate science is somewhat mystical. Judging by real statistics, biased opinions, fifty years of failed scientist consensus predictions and looking at those who stand to gain immense wealth from perpetrating this mystical doctrine, I conclude, it might just as well be magic or cabalism. Climate change is no more than a money maker for a few who desire to subjugate a population with unsubstantiated science.
No comments:
Post a Comment