What runs through your mind when you read the following quotes?
"99.1% of CEO's in the Defense Industry agree that without the most sophisticated, high tech weaponry, the U.S. will be vulnerable to foreign attacks!"
"99.9% of dentists agree - failing to go to the dentist on a regular basis can result in tooth decay and tooth loss!"
"99.4% of union members agree, without unions, the living standards of Americans will decline!"
"98.7% of the members of the Chamber of Commerce agree, raising the minimum wage will increase the unemployment rate for unskilled Americans!"
"98.8% of seat-belt manufacturers agree, without seat-belts, more Americans will die in automobile accidents each year!"
What is your reaction to these claims? You probably see some truth in them. In fact, you might even agree with them 100%, but you instinctively understand there is an element of self-interest inherent in these comments.
It may be true that everyone should go to the dentist two or more times each year, but dentists benefit financially by promoting the idea that regular checkups are a must to maintain healthy teeth.
This is why you don’t blindly accept the claims of self-interested parties, and why you probably question any policy proposed by a person or group who will directly benefit from their policy proposal. For example, if the American Dental Association proposed a policy requiring weekly dental checkups, you might be a bit skeptical.
Unfortunately, this common sense skepticism toward self-interested policy proposals is rarely applied when we read or hear, “98.6% of climate scientist believe climate change is real and it is caused by humans!”
For some reason, many people do not think about “scientists” as self-interested individuals who have an incentive to guide their research to reach conclusions that will result in additional public funds being allocated to climate research.
Many "scientists", especially "climate scientists" do, in fact, live off the public dole. Without the financial support of tax payers, they have no source of income to conduct their research.
Surprisingly, many Americans naively believe "climate scientists" are immune from the self-interested tendencies that infect businessmen, politicians, trade organizations, the public, and humankind in general.
"Climate scientists" have become the modern day High-Priests and the modern day Oracles of Delphi. They have the gift of prophesy, they are the only ones allowed to enter the Holy of Hollies, and their proclamations can never be questioned.
To those who are quick to challenge the self-interested assertions of businessmen, but slow to question the equally self-interested assertions of "climate scientists" - I ask you to remember who employs them and where their primary (if not only) source of income is derived.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Climate Scientist "...jobs will remain concentrated in the various levels of government and closely related industries, such as publicly funded universities, hospitals, and national research facilities."
In other words, "Climate Scientists" are paid almost exclusively by the government either directly or indirectly.
To understand how their self-interest might influence their research - ask yourself this:
If climate change is considered a "manageable problem" or “not a problem at all”, would funding for "climate science" research increase, decrease, or stay the same?
Almost certainly, if climate change is not considered a problem - government funding would be redirected to more urgent problems.
Without government funding what happens to employed “climate scientists”? They become unemployed “climate scientists”.
What do unemployed "climate scientists" do to earn a living? Substitute science teacher? Meteorologist? Something other than their preferred career?
On the other hand, do you think the government will funnel more funds to climate research if climate change is considered an “existential threat to humanity” or a "potential catastrophe which could lead to the extinction of life as we know it!"?
In most cases, the bigger the threat, the more money government will allocate to the problem.
Am I arguing that climate change scientists and alarmists are engaged in a "conspiracy"?
No.
I am simply arguing that "climate scientists" are self-interested individuals like most of us. They have a direct financial incentive to promote climate change concerns - and a little bit of hysteria doesn’t hurt their pocketbooks either.
Does this mean climate change isn’t real?
No.
Climate change is real. I have watched several documentaries that prove the Earth was once covered with ice and it slowly but surely melted. The documentaries are named Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Ice Age: The Continental Drift - must sees for anyone interested in the subject.
In other words, Earth was once mostly covered with ice, now it is not; therefore, the climate has obviously changed and will continue to change.
My concern is not that “Global Warming”, “Global Cooling”, or “Climate Change”, is not happening - it is with the people who use it to promote their political agenda.
For example, the “solutions” liberals promote to solve “climate change” are remarkably similar to the solutions they promote for every problem there is - real or apocryphal.
They are:
- Increase taxes and regulations.
- Place more power in the hands of the federal government and international organizations.
- Limit the freedoms of individuals.
Interesting enough, these are their same “solutions” to reduce unemployment, increase GDP, end world hunger, reduce gun violence, expand health insurance, improve education, et al.
They are a one-trick-pony. They ALWAYS propose more government and less freedom!
This might be fine if their solutions solved problems - but they don’t - they exacerbate them.
There are a couple more points I’d like for you to consider and contemplate.
First, given that the Earth’s climate is changing and has changed since the dawn of time - why would we ever believe humans can tweak the Earth’s climate?
There are many smaller, easier to solve environmental problems. Let me propose that liberals (and their scientists) fix the easy problems first. Get a few wins under their belts before they try to tackle the tougher environmental problems like climate change.
For example:
- Let’s end water pollution.
- Let’s eradicate air pollution.
- Let’s turn all the deserts into lush, rolling hills of farmland.
- Let’s wipeout gray hair.
- Let’s put an end to male pattern baldness.
- Let’s cure the common cold.
Okay, the last three or four aren’t related to the environment per se, but these are small isolated problems and our “scientists” can’t even solve these easy ones!
My point is this - solving “climate change” is a wee bit harder than these other problems we haven’t been able to solve. Remember, the Earth does not have a thermostat we can adjusted up or down for our comfort. Changing the climate is kind of a complicated. If I’m not mistaken, our meteorologists can’t even predict the weather for the weekend consistently.
Second, why should we be concerned about climate change? To be blunt - what’s the big deal?
We are told the sea levels will rise due to climate change.
Yeah, so?
Does this mean real-estate developers will no longer build near shore lines? Oh no, God help us!
Does it mean people will need to move away from the beach to higher ground?
Oh the humanity!
The truth is, these changes, if they happen at all, will occur gradually. People will adjust their lifestyles across the years, decades, generations... and the disruption to human life will be minimal. In fact, human life will experience much more disruption from the liberal “solutions” to this “problem”.
Here’s my bottom line:
- Climate change is a part of life on Earth.
- Humans cannot change the Earth’s climate.
- Humans have and will adapt to climate change, like they always have.
- Environmental scientists and activists have a financial incentive to promote climate change hysteria.
- Liberal/collectivist politicians use “climate change” to promote their political agenda of higher taxes, more regulations, and centralized government authority.
If liberals want me (and other Americans) to take action the next time they cry wolf...I mean cry “climate change” - they need to stop the hysteria and discuss the issue like responsible adults.
Otherwise, I will continue to be a skeptic (not of climate change), but of liberal climate change POLICY.
No comments:
Post a Comment