The Middle is Always Evil

I’m tired of the global warming debate in this country. It isn’t any fun at all. Nobody on either side of the argument knows how to properly discuss an issue, and I’m just about fed up.

First, let me be clear about what is being argued. The only thing still up for debate today, it seems, is how and why climate change is occurring. One side believes that global warming is occurring because of some natural force outside of man’s control, the other side believes that it is entirely man’s fault.

Now, pretend I’m the average American.

I’m not an expert on climatology; I really have no idea why global warming is occurring– I can’t be too sure if its happening at all. There are pundits and politicians on every side of me, yelling at me, telling me to take action, that its the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, that if I don’t agree I’m on par with Holocaust deniers. What am I supposed to believe? The whole issue just seems so political; who can I trust to be impartial? I can’t be called upon to know, or to think about it myself, thats for sure. So who do I turn to? Who knows? The scientists, of course!

But the scientists don’t agree either.

You are probably aware that in 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes released a study of peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003. She found that the majority of the work published during that period supported the conclusion that global climate change exists, and that it is man made.

What you probably did not know is that recently, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte updated her research. From DailyTech:

Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, [Schulte] examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

This is hardly a consensus, especially considering that of all the papers that were reviewed, only a “single one” accepted the view that climate change could lead to “catastrophic” results– the dominant view held by Al Gore liberals.

So even the experts don’t agree. In fact, most of them admit that they don’t even know.

So here’s my question: if the majority of scientists are undecided about climate change, how can folks be so gung-ho about diving into regulating industry and levying carbon taxes?

Let us quit obsessing over majorities and consensuses. Let’s slow down, take a deep breath, and remember that science has nothing to do with what percentage of people believe what. Just ask Galileo. We can chill out a little bit, and have a real debate about this issue; we can come to real conclusions– you know, scientific, objective ones…

Listen to both sides of the argument, and whichever one seems most rational to you, that is where you should throw your hat. Hear what the scientists have to say, but do not let them decide for you. Science has a long history of political motivation. Finally, if you listen diligently to both points of view within the scientific community and you believe that major catastrophe will occur if we do not act immediately, recognize that you are in a small minority within the scientific world. Recognize also that there are other ways of reducing the effects of said global warming without the need of such a vast reduction in carbon emissions.

Personally, I believe that the reason that we are experiencing climate change is because of the increase of sun spotting; I think that the problem is solar.

But hey, that’s me. What do you think?

Since starting this blog, I’ve blogged about environmentalism a little more than I’d like to.

There are other issues out there; issues that are more pressing, that affect our country and our world much more directly– like Iran’s nuclear program, or the fact that they’ve been launching test missiles capable of striking Israel. But so often I choose to write about the Environmentalist Movement over other things for a very specific reason, which is:

The choice to accept environmentalism or not is the choice between industry and inactivity, civilization and primitivism, comfortability and suffering; it is the choice between life and death. Many may disagree with this claim, citing the good intentions of the environmentalists: taking care of the earth couldn’t be bad, could it? After all, not all environmentalists are nut jobs like Eric Pianka, a noted ecologist who wants to kill off 90% of human life; most are in fact quite moderate, and simply believe that humans have a responsibility to look after the earth.

Such people are not evil, but they are misguided. They accept the two basic premises of environmentalism: that the environment is good because it is the environment, and that the smallest human interference in the natural ecological structure is a desirable goal. The logical conclusion of these premises, of course, is that human activity must be restricted as much as possible in order to prevent such interference. If you accept these premises, chances are good that you would not be in favor of a mass culling of the human population. The danger is that men like Pianka also accept them, and they desire to see their logical ends carried out. Since you’ve already accepted their premises, they can use the power of guilt to get you to accept a gradually more oppressive environmental policy. Case in point:

Yesterday, the leaders at the G8 Summit agreed to cut their countries’ carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, a radically anti-industrial move that will dismember the economy and stunt the standard of living for the global population. No one can claim that such an act was motivated by anything other than a hatred for mankind. Last week, a measure was put up for conideration in the British Parliament that would institute a personal cap-and-trade policy for every resident of England. Was this act considered because its proponents love the earth, or because they hate humanity? You be the judge.

With the basic premises of environmentalism so common today, it won’t be long before such cap-and-trade proposals are made in the United States. Do you really believe that such a measure would be beyond the scope of a Barack Obama environmental policy? Maybe not now, but what about four years from now? This is why the environmentalism issue is so important to me.

But there is another reason I frequently choose environmentalism over other topics. Throughout history, the war against man’s productive faculty has been waged under the banner of countless different names and movements; tribalism, monarchism, feudalism– more recently communism, socialism, and fascism– and of course, there’s always been the monstrosity that is organized religion. All of these have been a part of an overarching war on Individualism and a hatred of humanity; environmentalism is no exception here– it is merely the newest leader in the same war, the latest manifestation of the same hatred. However, environmentalism is different from its ideological ancestors in one, very important way.

In the past, movements that sought to destroy humanity (the modern ones anyway) have disguised their hatred for man’s virtues, proclaiming them to be the immoral while holding up their own standards as the moral alternative. With the broad base of society accepting altruism, their unpracticeable moral code, they guilted people into embracing their own self-destruction in the name of the love of mankind. Environmentalism is different because it makes no attempt to disguise its contempt for humanity.

Now, I won’t run through my whole spiel on environmentalism again because I’ve already blogged on it and have stated my opposition to it in as clear terms as I can, both here and in other places. But I will say this: