Today a blithering throng of nascent tyrants, fevered zealots, useless office-holders, hypocrites, and ignoble grifters will gather to kick off the 28th United Nations Conference of the Parties in the grand pursuit of “global transformative climate action.”
For nearly two weeks they will rail and prattle endlessly about how important it is to end fossil fuel use, nag those they slander as “deniers,” tell new lies, restate old lies, hold themselves up as saviors, dine sumptuously — then board jets, many of them privately owned, that burn oceans of hydrocarbon-based aviation fuel to return home. [emphasis, links added]
The legacy media, naturally, will go gleefully along for the ride.
They will employ the usual terminology – emergency, crisis, apocalypse, warmest, hottest, wettest, driest, melting, temperature records, accelerating change – that is intended to both frighten the public and boost their green cred that is earned by showing just how much one cares about the climate.
While this spectacle grinds on, it can’t be forgotten that the global warming narrative should not be taken as an indisputable fact.
Here are five reasons that we can’t blindly trust and follow the political left’s climate line:
- As we recently mentioned regarding the political left, which is now almost entirely radicalized, the issue it is raging about at any given moment is not the real issue. It is “only an occasion,” says David Horowitz, once a member of the New Left, “to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.” The constant screeching over man-made global warming is simply a pathway to accumulating ever-greater political power and control.
- Science, real science, not politicized, self-serving Tony Fauci science, demands skepticism and dissent. Minds should never be closed off to the possibilities that are beyond current scientific findings and theories. Science can never evolve or grow if today’s accepted truths are not challenged tomorrow. The “politically motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions,” says Judith Curry, former professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and now president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network. “Consensus enforcement,” she continues, “interferes with the self-correcting nature of science via skepticism, which is a foundation of the scientific process.”
- “Settled” science is often wrong. We knew Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it – until we knew better. The rule-makers knew masks and lockdowns were the best ways to mitigate the coronavirus outbreak – until the truth ran them down. A half-century ago, it was another ice age, not a warming climate, that threatened us. Many scientists in our lifetimes were sure that a giant volcanic eruption killed the dinosaurs, but maybe it was an asteroid. Long after Sir Isaac Newton formulated the theory of gravity, scientists are still arguing about how we keep our feet on the ground.
- Livelihoods and lives are at stake if those who argue that we’re overheating our planet get it wrong. Forcing everyone but the most privileged among us to live like it was another century – the 19th – will devastate billions.
- Skepticism makes us engage in critical thinking, protects us from manipulation, and helps us retain objectivity, which was lost long ago by a majority of climate researchers, policymakers, and journalists.
“Science is a process of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong,” says Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science.
If there is no skepticism, though, and if dissent is not allowed, then we can’t “learn that what we thought was right is wrong.”
Of course, that’s exactly what the climate crusaders want.
Read more at Issues & Insights
