Climate Change, Politics, Double-standards and Histrionics

So, here we all are, sharing the same planet. We go about our day-to-day lives, doing the best we can to prosper or at the very least, to find some sort of personal happiness before our time is done. So, when a subject as fearsome as climate change comes along, it's bound to get our attention. Seeing as how we are all bound to this same world, and thus far have no other available, I'd have to agree to saying our air quality is vitally important.

Yet, when I see the ongoing public debate on climate change, I must wonder if the discussion is really about climate change and the health of our environment, or if it is all nothing more than an excuse to impose new taxes on the people, specifically here in the United States and other industrialized Western countries.

Before I go into any detail, it's only fitting for me to point out, I am no scientist. So, like most of the rest of you, the big words and the terms used by the giant brains often require a search for their definitions as I follow along. I still have a lot to learn, myself, in spite of my personal bias. While I must leave the research and hard science up to the formally educated (and honestly struggle just to keep up) there are still other aspects about the debate which I'd like to speak upon.

Do you really trust politicians and bureaucrats with carbon taxes? For the sake of argument, let's pretend the idea of taking money by force from one person to pay for all of society's needs is morally justified. We can even play along with the notion of those taxes actually being applied towards the projects promised by politicians. Will that always be the case? Personally, I have my doubts.

Ever hear of a little project called The Social Security Act? Those who will bother to read through written history will likely find that President Roosevelt had what might have been a great idea, but since that day in August 14^th, 1935, the coffers of Social Security have been "borrowed against" for so many other programs, it's now reached the "tipping point," according to NPR in a July 20, 2011 report. For those not-so-inclined to trust NPR, there's also a report from The Washington Times.

We already have evidence of just how willing politicians are to raid the coffers of...ahem...I mean borrow against any so-called surplus for their various vote-buying public works projects. It's a simple question; can they be trusted? Don't just take my words for anything. Look into their track record thus far on how they've treated Social Security, on your own, and decide for yourself if they can be trusted with "carbon taxes."

Discussion and double standards- I simply have no respect for anyone who will attempt to apply a double-standard in any sort of a discussion. On his blog, Nigel Calder reports of an odd situation wherein scientists researching the effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate are instructed to share the results, but refrain from making any determination as to what the evidence indicates. There's a powerful bias against any evidence which does not support climate change being caused by anything other than human activity. While Planet Earth has a host of its own CO2-emitting volcanoes, and while living, breathing animals and birds exhale carbon dioxide, the only evidence allowed within the oddly-politicized environmental movement, is that human activity is destructive. Humanity itself is vilified and demonized as some sort of parasite.

Now that new evidence is discovered that our Sun has a bigger impact on our atmosphere than previously believed, this evidence is "toned down" by the media, by government, and even by quisling scientists who've abandoned the purity of the empirical process itself, and rather, lean upon the politically correct "consensus" of conveniently selected researchers. Consensus itself has never been, and can never be evidence, of anything other than consensus itself. Anyone calling themselves a scientist, who choose to purposely ignore the disproving of a hypothesis, discredits themselves.

Granted, we really still don't know for sure how much impact human activity might have towards the "greenhouse effect." But for anyone (regardless of the alphabet soup after their name) who claims to know all of the answers at this point, is either the most amazing, turbo-charged-with pin-stripes, bad-ass mind to have ever evolved, or they're severely deluded and have no business telling others how to live anyway. Nobody knows the answers about climate change, anymore than the real scientists who are actually doing the unbiased research, and even they say the jury is still out.

Now, about those environmentalist hysterics- The next time I see a rant on Facebook calling all of humanity (especially we "Imperialist Americans") evil for destroying our planet, I may just have to light into them to the point of forcing them to block me out of raw fear. It's their favorite tactic, right? Rather than rational discussion, I see hyper-emotional, all-caps rants about how terrible we all are, for the crime of living our lives. Such ridiculous behavior only leads up to events like the September 1^st, 2010 Discovery Channel assault by James Lee.

Lee wasn't even the first to commit an act of eco-terror. Anyone else remember a little group called Earth Liberation Front? Monsters, one and all. How about the hyperbole directed at BP over the Gulf spill at Deepwater Horizon off the coast of Louisiana, on April 20^th, 2010? Threats were made to attack BP gas stations and employees, who had not one thing to do with the spill.

Those who also engage in the same behavior on the topic of climate change are just as ridiculous, thoughtless, and immature. Shame on them. At a time when humanity needs to research the causes of climate change, or if it's even an issue, these types of histrionics serve as nothing more than a pointless distraction.