Friday, July 17, 2009
The Mother of All Cherries
AGW alarmism vs. skepticism is not about science vs. non-science; or science vs. religion; it is about sound science vs. unsound science. It is about what definite conclusions (and far-reaching actions) are warranted by the data vs. unwarranted.
It is also very much about the ideological barnacles that have attached themselves to the ship of science -- the "west is bad and must be punished", and "humans are a virus" assumptions that are now part of the AGW package that is shipped to schools and consumed by impressionable minds daily.
And a lot of ancillary things -- like the popular use of metaphor such as "the earth has a fever" and "the planet is on fire" to advance the AGW cause -- which is one reason I "cherry-pick" weather events to poke fun at the AGW messengers -- especially when events don't go according to script. But, unlike AGW alarmists, I use the cherry-picked weather events for satirical, as opposed to scientific, or pecuniary (hello Al Gore), purposes. This flies over the heads of AGW fundamentalists -- even when I point out this is what I am doing they still go nuts. (While their side, of course, continues to cherry-pick weather events when it suits them -- e.g., the iconic image of the stranded polar bear, and Katrina, the mother-of-all-cherries).
It's also about the social ramifications; not just the up-ending of western economies that is being advocated and the vast socialist enterprise (I use the word lightly) of redistributing earned wealth to disfunctional economies and governments, it's also about the fact of AGW alarmists advocating urgent measures such as civil disobedience and throwing ideological enemies in jail for the crime of disbelieving. Am I exaggerating? I am not.
And, of course, the fact that scientists that don't get on board the AGW ship are censured and lose funding, while those who are on board are awarded millions, resulting in skewed, built-in incentives to crank the alarmist message ever higher in the darwinian quest for continued funding -- an inconvenient truth, I'm sure.
And a generally compliant media because "scientists have spoken" and Madonna and Sir Richard are on-board.
And the AGW fundamentalist who thinks an important part of the solution is keeping African communities without electricity because, trust me, they're better off and happier without it. This reminds me of the, what, is it 20 or 30 million Africans who have died because western environmentalists demanded the withdrawal of the use of DDT as a malaria prophylactic. 20 or 30 million dead as a result of western environmentalist activism -- an inconvenient truth -- especially if you're one of Africans affected. Environmentalists had all the supposed science behind them but were still dead wrong on their last major cause, but they're really, really sure this time -- they've got computer models to prove it.
And what I regard as the sheer and utter hubris of mankind thinking that he alone is the cause of climate change and that he has the power to control the climate.
And the dangerous sub-text to all of this: world governance controlling populations and individuals in the name of urgent necessity.
And the tendency of AGW fundamentalists to see this as a black-and-white issue without nuance, subtlety, or doubt. Here's the way some of their thinking apparently goes. "Our side may be cherry-picking weather events, but, the science is in, and this may help persuade some people, so it's for a good cause", and, "the science may in fact turn out to be wrong, but, the actions we're proposing are good, so in the end, it doesn't matter if the science turns out to be wrong." That last one is not an invention of mine -- it was expressed by a high-placed U.S. government official.
So, we've got a science-driven ideology that no longer depends on the science for its continued existence and promulgation. Is this something that should be uncritically embraced? I think not. Should those who question it be denounced and threatened with imprisonment? I think not. Should entities that stand in the way of AGW enthusiasts face acts of civil disobedience and sabotage? Call me old-fashioned, I think not.
Am I skeptic? Yes, I am.
And that's the way the cherry-picking Ball bounces.
"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"