Tuesday, May 19, 2015

A Philosophical Argument Against Global Warming

Global Warming has been thoroughly discredited over the years by rational thinking people, failed predictions by alarmists, and the obvious abuse of the findings of the government backed scientists to further attempt to empower the very politicians paying them.

But that doesn't stop Youtube celebrity, Derek of Vertasium from making a compelling argument:

Derek does a better job than most communists at spreading this propaganda, and for that, I commend him. The problem with global warming is that it is being used by politicians as a tool and/or weapon to expand the power of the ruling class, and further cripple individual freedom and free market capitalism. This causes a system of corruption where government grants are awarded to scientists that can produce statistics, graphs, and other propaganda, or be a spokesman for the advocacy of crippling regulations enforced by abusive bureaucrats to combat a problem that only exists at a future date based on the predictions of man-made computer models. I've been on Earth 40 years. Its not getting warmer. I remember very hot summer days in the 1980's. I also remember some of the coldest winters in the past 5 years. I know that is not a scientific analysis. It is merely anecdotal. But where is it getting hotter? How? Show me old pictures of beaches where the water level was lower 50, 75, or 100 years earlier. Surely something like that exists. Stop telling me the sea levels are rising with a graph. I don't believe you. You have serious credibility problems. I know the 20 and under crowd can easily fall for this, but I am not. Sorry.

The reaction of the global warming alarmists are always the same and I don't fault it:
"Our scientists outnumber yours."
"Our scientific evidence beats yours."

First of all, science is not democracy where the more popular opinions win. Anyone that ever tried to bully you into agreeing with their findings or results based on words like "consensus" and "6x more papers predicting warming than cooling" don't understand real science. I can argue the second statement, and have many times before along with many others. A simple Google search will give you lots of credible scientific refutations of the science the alarmists are peddling.

But that's not what I want to do anymore. Instead, I will give a PHILOSOPHICAL argument against global warming:

The thing I like about the philosophical argument against the global warming alarmists is that it can be used even if you concede that global warming could possibly be a reality, effectively eliminating the need to get into a back and forth exchange over science, data, computer models, etc.

The questionable evidence conjured up to show a tiny sliver of a possibility that global warming might be real, and even more precarious evidence that shows it might be man made, isn't compelling enough to overcome the fact that its credibility can be called into question due to the political ramifications which leave it wide open for corruption. And given the history of the devastating results of communism on humanity in world history, I think its wiser to err on the side of caution by allowing free market capitalism reign in the face of the tiny possibility that it may cause the temperature of the globe to rise a few degrees in the next 10,000 years, than to scourge humanity with communism. In other words, given the choice of subjecting my great-great-great grandchildren to a world half a degree hotter than mine, or communism, I'll choose freedom, liberty, and capitalism every time. At least in my world, they will be able to have the means and technology to live in such a world. In yours, it will look like transplanting 1989 Soviet Union on to the Saharan Desert.

 You can't forget that climate change scientists all say that government intervention is required. All the leftist politicians are seizing on this.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste" - Rham Emanuel

The only reason politicians keep screaming about global warming is to seize on the opportunity to implement socialist policies that give more power to those in charge. If you read Marxist papers and websites, they will tell you that "Socialism is the road necessary to gradually implement Communism." Therefore it is always a slippery slope, and a slope too many people want to jump on at the expense of liberty, rights, and the free market capitalism that has risen humanity out of thousands of years of destitution.

This is not a false dichotomy. You give politicians the power to do whatever they think is necessary to combat something we have yet to detect with our own senses (including our own eyes!), and you have sold your freedom to the Communists. The same ideology that has produced Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and others who have used communism to justify the mass murders of up to 100 million people.

To that I say HELL NO!