I am more than a doubter on the matter of catastrophic man-made global warming. I say the hypothesis is based on faulty physics and as such it is wrong. There is certainly no empirical evidence it is right and the claim of a scientific consensus is wrong. Even the committed insiders funded to make the gigantic climate computer models produce widely divergent results, hardly indicative of a settled science and a scientific consensus. The hypothesis has so much politically and financially invested in it that NOAA and NASA GISS are constantly fudging the surface temperature data to try to keep its failure from being completely obvious.
Now Loretta Lynch, the U. S. Attorney General of the Obama Department of Justice has referred "evidence" to the FBI that some persons have conspired to deny the truth of this alarmist hypothesis. This blog is certainly replete with evidence that I oppose this failed hypothesis. The Justice Department wants the FBI to determine if these persons should be persecuted, err ...prosecuted for their efforts to spread doubt about whether man's use of fossil fuels will cause a disaster. This seems a reversal of the usual process. Usually the FBI gathers evidence and then consults the Justice Department about whether to pursue a prosecution. Or at least that is what is supposedly happening in the Hillary Clinton e-mail theft and national security exposure scandal.
It is most strange that many on the left believe or pretend to believe that all of the opposition to the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis is due to manipulations by fossil fuel industry powers. It could not be more obvious that many scientists are opposed to this alarmist hypothesis because scientific observation does not support it. Some, as is the case for me, also oppose it because the physics that is claimed to cause the warming effect of so-called greenhouse gases is wrong. Neither I nor many other opposition scientists are being funded in any way by the fossil fuel industry to be in opposition to the hypothesis. In my case, my arguments are made explicit and can be judged on their own merits.
This is not the case for the arguments of the catastrophic man-made global warmers. You can hardly ever pin them down on what the physics of their argument actually is. When you do pin them down, the argument can be shown to be wrong. So why do they persist in making these wrong and flimsy "scientific" arguments? It is because they are well-funded by a biased government to do so. The conspiracy is not nearly so much by fossil fuel companies as it is by big government. The motive is a huge enhancement of government power through the intensive controls of our energy use.
Note the rapid inroads of this Obama administration in wresting control of our medical care, our finances, and our energy use. This is a huge transfer of power from our private sector of free choice to the government sector of mandates and dictates. It is an historic movement from cooperative endeavors among individuals to coerced, involuntary collectivism, with many collective groups favored over others. It is a massive theft from producers by those who only exercise the political power to use brutal force to take what they want.
In fact, it has become quite the tragicomedy to watch the alarmists bemoan the fact that they ever claimed that greenhouse gases warmed the Earth by 33K and that more of any greenhouse gas would warm it more. Now they do not wish to be pinned to a warming effect. No, any climate change now is said to support their argument, even though only a fool is not aware of the fact that the weather is always changing and even short-term climate has always undergone changes. The measure of their desperation to shut up those who do not agree with their call that the sky is falling, is now a threat of persecution by the law. Specifically, we are to be persecuted under the anti-racketeering law, RICO. Such persecutions have long been advocated by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, of Rhode Island. A letter recently emerged from a group of government-funded scientists at George Mason University also calling for persecutions by the law. Of course, some anti-fossil fuel use alarmist advocates have even called for the death penalty for those who disagree with them.
The individual rights protections of the First Amendment for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press do not apply to those who disagree with a pet project of the Progressive Elitist left. It apparently says so, right there in the Bill of Rights. It says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless the exercise of those freedoms thwarts the desire of the Progressive Elitist agenda to exercise greater control over the lives of the People." This is the way First Amendment "privileges" are now taught in the government-controlled education system. The products of that system believe in this version of the First Amendment with a near total consensus, as evidenced by campus speech codes. As we are now told over and over, Progressive Elitist consensus determines reality. The foundational idea of the scientific method that reality is independent of the imaginings of the human mind, is no longer operational in much of our society. It is evil to oppose the Progressive Elitist agenda and evil must be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
The Progressive Elitist likes to claim that they protect individual rights in the bedroom. Not so much actually, but they are really determined to undermine the individual right to think. You see thinking is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Amendments to the Constitution generally. Yes, any rational person would recognize that the right to think for yourself is protected in the Ninth Amendment, but the government long ago decided that it did not want to recognize any of the individual rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Protected individual rights always limit the power of government and that is not desired by those drawn to the power of government. It is particularly not desired by those who deny individuality and embrace collectivism. They belittle the individual, the seat of thought, and praise the grouping of people into cliques as though they are all high school children with vague, fashionable, superficial allegiances and little ability to generate their own ideas.
So those of us who do think for ourselves and who dare to speak and write about our ideas, must be shunned and shamed, fined and imprisoned -- to the fullest extent of the law!
No comments:
Post a Comment