Voltaire quote
I read a good quote today from Voltaire. It was concerning the virtual collapse of global warming hysteria:
“Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”
What? No warming for the last 15 years?
He also stated that during the medieval warming period, temperatures were higher than they are now.
The fantasy’s over.
Petition to stop cap and trade
Subject: Stop the cap-and-trade scam.
Sign the petition opposing cap and trade policies.
Protect American jobs, energy, and prosperity from global warming hype.
Efforts to control man-made “greenhouse gases” through mandatory policies like cap and trade are nothing more than “All Pain, No Gain” – all economic pain for no environmental gain.
Energy Tax: Proposals like cap and trade are simply a massive tax on energy use – on everything we heat, cool, drive, make, grow, eat, and do – and will therefore cause the price of everything to skyrocket.
Hurts Americans: These proposals will harm all Americans by exorbitantly raising gasoline prices and utility bills, sending jobs overseas, perpetuating the myth that “green jobs” will grow our economy, and acting as a huge “regressive tax” that will especially hurt the poor and our nation’s seniors on fixed incomes.
Failing Science: An outpouring of peer-reviewed studies, data, and skeptical scientists from around the world debunks the alleged “consensus” about man-made global warming. The Earth is well within natural climate variability, climate fear is being driven by unproven computer models, and it is preposterous for the EPA, White House, or Congress to call carbon dioxide a “pollutant.”
Purely Symbolic: Congressional proposals like cap and trade, and international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, are purely symbolic efforts at reducing emissions and stabilizing the climate. Even President Obama’s own EPA admits cap-and-trade policies will have no detectable impact on global CO2 levels or temperatures. U.N. treaties will also be meaningless since developing nations like China and India have no intention of setting definite CO2 limits.
I just signed a petition to stop the cap-and-trade scheme. I hope you will, too. Please have a look and take action by clicking the link below.
Douglas
Incompetant, dishonest, buffoons
I’m on a tear. This global warming thing is global madness. Arnold Schwarzenegger needs to go back to doing commercials for Subway and worrying more about the catastrophe he’s helped produce in California. Stop talking about greenhouse gasses and the end of the world, Governor.
The Daily Express newspaper in the UK lists 100 reasons why global warming is a farce.
Most worrisome:
“In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.”
The Democrats are going to wreck us economically. Quack science, fantasy economics, and a hatred of American Exceptionalism.
Thanks a lot Al Gore.
Don’t rely on science when it comes to global warming–rely on common sense.
What kind of food makes you healthy?
Depends what decade you’re in. Back when my grandmother was growing up, she knew that starches made you fat. In the 70′s, it was fat that made you fat. Now there’s a big argument, and many have given into the “I have fat genes”, bull. Science still can’t say for sure what makes people healthy, other than in a few areas, such as smoking: It’s very bad and the numbers are so obvious that no one argues. 2000% increase in lung cancer anyone?
Fact is, there are too many variables when it comes to diet. People who eat “healthy” whatever that means for a given time period, also tend to do a lot of other things considered good for well being. They exercise, don’t smoke, are married, tend to be more educated etc.
Since science cannot easily pinpoint causation in health and diet, how much more difficult must it be to find causation when it comes to global temperature changes.
In all the research I’ve done, I’m finding it difficult to determine if the temps in the last decade have gone up or down. This whole thing is a mess, and not worthy of massive changes that will end up reducing productivity and starving third world nations.
Logan’s Run–here we come!
One of the first films I disctincly remember seeing as a youth is Logan’s Run. The movie’s based on a novel by the same name, written by William F. Nolan and George Johnson.
The dystopian horror story starts like this:
- “The seeds of the Little War were planted in a restless summer during the mid-1960s, with sit-ins and student demonstrations as youth tested its strength. By the early 1970s over 75 percent of the people living on Earth were under 21 years of age. The population continued to climb — and with it the youth percentage.
- In the 1980s the figure was 79.7 percent.
- In the 1990s, 82.4 percent.
- In the year 2000 — critical mass.”
Logan 3 and his vegan babe pose for pics in Copenhagen.
In order to combat the over population in the year 2116, it is law that people report for execution on the day they turn 21 years old. Sometimes people try to escape this fate and become Runners, and they attempt to make it to a secret coven of others like themselves–a space colony called Sanctuary. The government dispatches professional assassins, known as Sandmen to murder the Runners.
The main character–Logan 3, is himself a Sandman, who over the course of the book, becomes a Runner.
The book also depicts a world where promiscuous sex and drug use are not frowned upon, and yet tobacco is illegal.
Sorry, but I can’t help but see some parrallels with what’s going on with the Global Warming issue. GW is now the great funnel through which all progressive agendas are poured: Population control, anti-meat rhetoric, environmentalism, totem-like worship of animals, anti-industrialism.
Think Logan’s Run can’t happen? I hope not, but how much farther is that dystopian vision from Diane Francis’ idea, as printed in the Canadian Paper: Financial Post?
Yup, you read correctly. Francis proposes a world-wide law preventing people from having more than one child. As she states in ending:
Spoken like a true liberal fascist.
Has science really done better than religion?
The modern age can be properly summed in this way: Man has moved away from relying on the unseen and has now placed his faith in the seen. That is: Empiricism. There can be little argument that this change in thinking has resulted in tremendous advances in medicine, engineering, and the overall comfort level of the Western citizen.
But this is all quite new. Aristotle’s theory of the Tabula Rasa barely impacted the ancients. Not until Aquinas and Locke melded empiricism with Christian doctrine did a real scientific method begin to form and even then, it was not until the advent of the Steam Age, that it can truly said that science had a major impact on the life of the everyday man.
But the true schism of thought occurred when Galileo published his book: Dialogue. Man began a slow movement away from his belief in an invisible God, even though Galileo himself argued that his findings were not contrary to scripture. To this day, the following passages are used as “proof” that the scriptures are not scientific, therefore cannot be divinely inspired:
“the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”~Psalm 96:10
“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” ~Ecclesiastes 1:5
Galileo argues, like Augustine, that the above statements were obviously metaphorical. The fissure between science and God was set, and those who did not believe set about to insert a chisel to widen the gap. Darwin all but completed the split of religion and science as monolith.
The gap between science and religion has had several unintended and negative consequences for science itself. For one, it set those who are vehemently anti-religion on a path that seeks to use science as a weapon of religious deconstruction. This is no better–indeed probably worse–than the Church of Galileo’s day which sought to mold nature into an ideological model of a perfect Christian Universe. The problem was, they had no real arguments as to why that universe was perfect or Christian.
We see now, that the atheists try to prove the evil of religion, by labeling evil men of the past as religious, and assigning religion as these men’s motivation. In reality, any motivation of adequate power can be used to commit atrocity. Repeatedly we are reminded of Hitler’s mystical and religious overtones. I remain extremely sceptical of Hitler’s religious motivations and I urge those who want to dwell on his mysticism as his primary reason for slaughtering millions, to consider this: What would his efforts have come to without science? A zealot without a weapon is only a hateful monk.
Though Hitler may have searched for religious texts to justify himself, it seems his beliefs would have been the same regardless. Afterall, he was a staunch believer in the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion–a proven fraudulent document written by the Russian, Czarist secret police.
The science used by the Nazi’s is well documented.
Nazis measure the skull to prove racial purity
Jew submitted to cold water experiment
And of course, the strides made by the Nazis in military tactics and weaponry have strongly affected all modern military thought.
Is this blog entry an anti-science, anti-intellectualism diatribe on my part? No–on the contrary. It is a call for truth. The schism between science and religion has in many cases boiled to scientists being afraid of what they may find, because it contradicts their ethos. Because of this, because of that split that ocured long ago, the intellectual Left, to this day, holds a heavy sway over science. And so, they are short-changing science by starting with an ideological premise. We’ve seen the terrible results of this type of thinking: The man-made global warming issues we have today are a symptom of a greater evil: Science as a weapon.
There are many other examples that I see, of science being twisted and truth suffering. Though some may not see the problem as a large one, let’s look at the effects of ideology on our diets. Heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Shouldn’t we take back the science of good diet from those that have reasons other than our best health in mind? What am I speaking of? Again, go back to the split of religion and science. While the original premise that fat is responsible for heart disease was originally born of over-simplified, linear thought, it has been allowed to remain and prosper because of the Left. It is the Left, with its adoration of vegetarianism–and therefore the over-consumption of grains and processed carbohydrate–that preach the evils of eating meat. The science simply doesn’t back it–but a modern liberal’s ethos does. Dr. Atkins, though his theories were not perfect, was willing to step outside his preconceptions–and more and more he is being shown as correct.
And to think that Christianity and science cannot coexist is simply wrong. I’m not pressing for the abolition of science, but for the abolition of fear.
My novel’s title: For Want of Knowledge, is taken from the Bible verse:
For Want of Knowledge, my people perish, Hosea 4:6
It’s about a man, Craig Looms, who finds himself without friends, skills or direction, and so falls under the sway of an assassin vampire, resurrected. I understand man needs science, lest we perish.
I challenge scientists to cast aside their own bias. To face truth, however horrible it may be, however it may discredit their comrades. I see science drifting away and becoming the holy relic of an anti-mystical religion. The unipolar control that leftist intellectuals have exuded on science has damaged science and its reputation. Bring it back from the cliffs of idealism to the pastures of truth.
As with evolution, leftist scientists need no “proof” on global warming. They already have the answers.
EPA analyst, Alan Carlin wrote a report that said something the EPA didn’t want to hear: The connection between CO2 and Global Warming is dubious. Oh oh. Guess there’s nothing to do but wage a war of personal destruction. One EPA rep says that Carlin isn’t a scientist, he’s a economist. What a croc. Economists are the best there are at finding associations and possible causations. Read Freakonomics. Not only that, Carlin is an economist who was hired by the EPA. Hmmm.
Recent Comments