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?

Tonight, my girlfriend and I decided to go see The Happening, M. Night Shyamalan’s latest train wreck of a film. Not only was the acting and the plot development poor, it didn’t make any sense– and worst of all, by the end, the film reveals itself to be nothing more than a piece of crass, anti-humanist environmentalist propaganda.

The film revolves around a man named Elliot and his wife, who are trying to flee from an apparent biochemical terrorist attack in the form of a toxin in the air, which, when people are exposed to it, causes them to kill themselves in unusual and gruesome ways. We soon find that it is not a terrorist attack at all, but a pesticide released into the air by plants— all plants. Apparently, the plants become sensitized and release the pesticide when large groups of people come near. The audience is left utterly clueless as to why all of this is happening until the very end of the film, when (after the event mysteriously ends) a scientist speculates that the plants were taking defensive measures to wipe out a virus that was infecting them, and is infecting them still— humanity.

This kind of attitude about human kind does not exist in isolation within this film; this anti-human sentiment has existed for years in the Ecology movement, and it is not a laughing matter. There are serious groups dedicated to the extinction of humanity– some of them are passive, like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which says on its website that an earth without humans

sounds like paradise, doesn’t it? …Without us meddlesome humans, all other species would get their fair chance at survival.

They ask us to

envision an impossible dream: all human sperm suddenly and permanently loses viability – no impregnated human egg begins meiosis to form a zygote – none transforms from embryo into the sacred fetus, is carried to term and sentenced to life. Zero conceptions, wanted or un.

In their defense, the VHEM only calls for what they call a “voluntary extinction” which means no forced population control, no nuclear weapons, no mass graves; they simply want us all to stop breeding, and they want us to do it right now. But these crazy folks are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to hatred of mankind.

In April of 2006, Professor Eric R. Pianka, noted ecologist, gave a speech (to a packed audience, no less) in which he called for the extermination of 90% of humans now living with an airborne Ebola virus. No further comment is needed.

The entire driving philosophy behind environmentalism is flawed, and must be checked. Environmentalists believe that nature is an end in and of itself, that it must be upheld and protected above all else. This is why some of them (the ones that are consistent, anyway) will say things like, “You’re looking at the world with a humanity bias,” which means, of course, that you are brutish and selfish for valuing human life above a tree frog or dirt. If we accept that nature is good because it is nature, and for no other reason, it makes sense to desire human extinction; such a desire is merely taking the saying “Leave the Smallest Footprint Possible” to heart. Man survives by manipulating the environment to suit his needs– there is no other way. If we accept that we should leave the smallest impact on the world as possible, why not just wipe ourselves out?

The environment is not an end in and of itself, it is only an end so long as it serves human ends. I want clean air, not because I love the earth goddess and want to see her restored to her natural state, not because of some nebulous responsibility that I feel I have for nature, but because I like clean air, it feels good in my lungs, and it serves as a major value for me to be able to breathe. I want clean water for similar reasons. I want trees around, because I know that, instead of attacking me and forcing me to commit suicide as M. Night Shyamalan would have it, they produce Oxygen for me to breathe, and as I said above, I consider breathing to be important to me. But I will not stop myself from cutting down trees to make room for my house for any reason other than that those trees are, for whatever reason, of more value to me than the house. I refuse to act in discordance with my values, and so should you.

Proclaim once and for all that your own life, not nature, is your standard of what is good and evil, and renounce environmentalism forever.