Battle4Liberty

In the 1970s it was global cooling (http://newsbusters.org/node/6546).

When the evidence suggested that the earth wasn’t cooling, they called it global warming (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html).

When the evidence suggested that the earth wasn’t warming, they started calling it climate change. Now the White House is calling it climate disruption (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/).

But wait…if we only initiate massive government controls we can keep from destroying the earth for our children and grandchildren…

There’s far too much on this topic to discuss here. As a primer, I HIGHLY recommend The Great Global Warming Swindle released in 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ). A recent book review in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html) is also great reading. I want to focus on the connection between science and politics, and more specifically on the notion of experts.

Respect expertise on a topic, but don’t follow the experts blindly. They are not always correct. “Experts in the scientific community” are telling us that we are causing the earth to heat up and that we must take action soon to avoid destroying the planet. But “leading economists” also told us that Obama’s 2008 $787 billion stimulus package was going to create tons of new jobs and it didn’t. You’ve probably had a mechanic tell you that paying him for some type of preventative maintenance was necessary to avoid a breakdown that never happened.

Experts are just like the rest of us. They have biases, limitations, and political views. They want to feel like they matter. They are also influenced by the money trail—government grants for climate research, political contributions for cronyism, or a quick $75 for an unnecessary car repair. This doesn’t mean that they’re expertise isn’t valuable or that they can never be trusted, but it does mean that their claims should be vetted.

When it comes to climate change, there are lots of questions that need to be answered. For starters, why should we believe dire forecasts about anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming when the ones about global cooling were incorrect? If many of the climate claims have already been debunked, why should we believe the current ones? How can we be certain that human activity is causing climate change when we know that there have been more pronounced temperature swings long before humans started building factories and driving cars? Couldn’t the oceans and solar activity—things we cannot control—be the prime causes of climate shifts?

The proponents of climate change are good at issuing reports but have been unable to provide definitive answers to questions like these. Many prefer to say that the topic is too complicated to explain or it’s “settled science.” Some play the “what if we’re right” game, suggesting that we must take drastic action just to be on the safe side. Others mock you as a flat-earther, a greedy capitalist, or an environment hater if you question them. If the “experts” on anthropogenic climate change cannot provide convincing answers to these and other questions, then we have every reason to be suspicious.

But why does the notion of anthropogenic climate change have such a strong political following? If we accept the fact that human activity is irreparably harming the earth, then it stands to reason that we (government) must take action. In the case of climate change, the action required is a mass scale-down of business activity and heavy-handed government control to make sure that nobody drives the wrong car, burns the wrong fuel, produces the wrong crops, raises the wrong livestock, or make the wrong products. But it gets worse. The only way to combat this globally is with multi-country agreements, which means global enforcement, wealth redistribution from developed nations (the earth destroyers) to less developed ones, and the constant negotiation of our Constitutional liberties to appease other nations. If you’re a hard-core socialist who dreams of a one-world government, then this is your ticket.

I have a simple suggestion that could go a long way to resolve this problem: A NATIONALLY TELEVISED DEBATE with a team of scientists on each side and a moderator whose only job is to make sure they don’t get bogged down in scientific jargon. This would give the climate change advocates an opportunity to sway the critics, but would also expose the holes in their arguments. Of course, this is why it will never happen. The proponents would rather stick to the “settled science” argument and let the media push the political agenda.