The Four Objections: Four Quandries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

The Four Objections: Four Quandaries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

First off, let me say that this is not all my own work. Many people have pointed to similar things as I will list here (possibly even listed them as a group), so what I am really doing is explaining these Objections as I see them and in my own words. So without further ado, let me begin:

Number One: What is the 'Change' in 'Climate Change'?

More specifically, what will change, where, how much and when will it change? If this is not clearly known, then why on Earth would anyone be afraid? I understand when an assertion is proposed that the Earth is warming. I understand an assertion claiming that the oceans are rising. But how warm will it get? How high will the ocean levels rise? And much more importantly, what will that do to the actual climate?

Humans do best in warm areas and coastal areas. Is a warmer planet something to fear? How warm would it need to become for it to become uninhabitable to humans? How high would the oceans have to rise --and how swiftly-- to be a threat to humans? And most importantly, is either of those two things supported climate models that are backed by accurate predictions?

Is it more storms that we are supposed to be worried about, or desertification, or more snow? Have any of those things been predicted? I recall hearing repeatedly when major storms and hurricanes hit, that such things 'could be' a result of Climate Change, but no one would offer anything to prove it. It was always, 'Well, this might be....'. Sorry, 'might be' isn't going to scare me. Because 'might be' implies 'might not be' and even more so, there is the possibility that --rather than something fearful-- something wonderful could happen.

What if, as the Earth warmed, weather patterns shifted and provided reliable rain to extremely arid regions? What if millions of square miles in northeastern Asia became very nice for humans to live in? What if? If there is an open question as to what specifics something like Climate Change will bring, then aren't the benefits just as likely as the detriments?

If I am supposed to be concerned about Climate Change, then I need to know exactly what the expected consequences are and exactly why those are to be feared. Otherwise, I will trust in human ingenuity and adaptability and not worry about a changing future. Who ever said the future is--or is supposed to be-- predictable?




Number Two: Where is the scientific method behind Climate Change?

Science exists for just one reason: to allow humans to reliably predict the future. Without the ability to predict the future more accurately than other means of functioning in the world, science is useless. Utterly useless. I can go into much deeper detail on this, but I trust that (for the purposes of this essay) the reader understands this point.

SO how is Climate Change doing with the predictions? Where are the predictions that came true?This has been a very sore spot with Climate Change proponents, and I can see why, with a failure to make good predictions comes a failure of the Climate Change model itself. That is how real science works. Once you are able to make predictions you are in a position to advance the hypothesis into becoming a full theory. Without that, you must keep going back around to re-examine the hypothesis. The process becomes stuck in a tedious loop. People hate tedium. They want to 'just get on with it. Those who don't understand the importance of this part of the process will laughably insist that the 'science is settled' ad move forward--as if the models were working, when they plainly are not.

So that is the second objection. Climate Change is stuck in the development process as it keeps failing to make accurate predictions and thus keeps failing to advance according the the scientific method.





Number Three: "Do as I say, not as I do" said Al Gore nervously.

This third objection is less about the scientific process and more about the broader perspective of how Climate Change is viewed by the public-- who are the presumed audience of the Climate Change presentation. When you have Al Gore (and many, many others, mind you) telling you that CO2 driven Climate Change is a threat to everyone on Earth and then he jets around the world (released an inordinate amount of CO2) and he returns to his home (which uses many times the average amount of electricity from a coal-fired power-plant grid), it looks a bit strange. How can he think releasing CO2 is a threat when he goes about doing it (much more than an average person does) with nary a care? Or look at all the Hollywood celebrities; how can Leonardo DiCaprio seriously be telling people to cut their carbon emissions when he consumes so very much fossil-fuel energy? How can any of them? At least they could take their vast fortunes and make their homes energy sufficient. But how many of them do? I think it is fair to say that any of those who do not take drastic measures to limit the amount of carbon that they are putting into the air become complete hypocrites when they lecture anyone else to do so.

At least when 'the little people' think that putting CO2 into the atmosphere, they can plausibly use the 'hardship' excuse for why they don't stop using fossil fuels (we will becoming back to that excuse though). But what excuse have the wealthy? Basically, they are acting as if they don't really believe that Climate Change is a threat. And I think it is fair to conclude that they don't.

BUT, when the leaders of a movement don't believe in the ideas of the movement, doesn't that undermine the whole thing? Think of how much trouble has been caused by Catholic leadership not acting as if the respected the lives destroyed by the actions of a few of their priests? Even if one would argue that the higher idea of God having a church on Earth were to be defended, there is no denying that it hurt the Catholic church in trying to get out the message and in trying to do good work--because people felt betrayed. Shouldn't people now feel betrayed by the actions of the leadership of the Climate Change movement?






Number Four (aka 'The Dozy'): So, what are you gonna do?

Ok, if you found the other Three Objections able to be bypassed (I'd like to know how, btw) this is where you stop. Regardless of the science, the public relations and the threat of Climate Change, there is one inescapable truth: There is nothing you can do.

Hold on. Let me clarify this.

There is no way (no matter the reason and evidence) that you will ever persuade a majority of the world's people to support whatever action you think should be taken. There is no way that you will get half the people of the world to even understand what the threat of Climate Change *is* to them (intelligence distribution being what it is). We can't even get enough people to agree to stamp out human trafficking. We can get people to just 'not treat others in the way they wouldn't want to be treated' (an idea so simple a child can understand it). There is ZERO chance of ever getting a mandate from the people of the world to 'stop Climate Change' (even if that were both possible and desirable).

So then what? Take action in the absence of a mandate? Take action against a mandate to do nothing? What percentage do you think is required to justify taking action? What about preventing other people from putting more carbon into the atmosphere? What if a country that owns oil and coal decides to make power plants to burn them and tells everyone else to 'mind their own business'? Will you use force to stop them? Really? What if you have a plan to dump Sulfur Dioxide (or whatever) into the atmosphere to remove the carbon, and they say 'no'? Will you use force? Will they?

Once you start initiating force on other people, you lose whatever moral 'high ground' you thought you had. ESPECIALLY if you are not 100% certain that it is the only action that could be taken and that it must be taken.

But would even such things be enough? Wouldn't you have to stop using all fossil fuels on an industrial scale? As far as I know, that is the only known 'solution'. And what would that solution do? It would destroy the world's economies and condemn billions of people to abject poverty. And would even the Climate Change believers allow themselves to be subjected to such poverty? I think we already know. They are not doing it when it is not mandatory, why would we think they will co-operate, even if it were mandatory? They won't.

And that hasn't even addressed the issue of the people who might conclude that Climate Change will be good for humans. What would you do with them? More violence?

No, no matter how the Climate Change 'debate' progresses, in the end it comes to this. There is just no way to 'solve' it other than going around the rest of the people of the world, and using force (maybe quite a bit of force) against some of them. Will you create an apocalypse to prevent one?

Connecting the Dots: The DNC Hack

Connecting the Dots: The DNC Hack

Recently, the news has been atwitter with reports that the Russians hacked the DNC email and gave that information to Wikileaks for distribution. Let's review some fact --some of which you may not be aware of-- and make some conclusions and speculate just a little about what is really going on here. Let's 'connect the dots', as it were.

The facts:
Fact1. The Mainstream Media provided help to the DNC by giving them the questions before some of the debates were to occur.

F2. The DNC provided help to Hillary, but not to Bernie, by giving her the questions ahead of the debate.

F3. The DNC emails were gievn to Wikileaks for distribution.

F4. A few weeks after Wikileaks reported the emails, DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in Washington DC, his wallet was not taken. He was killed by person or persons unknown for motives unknown.

F5. Wikileaks has indicated that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leaks.

F6. The CIA has a 600 million dollar contract with Amazon.

F7. Amazon bought the Washington Post for 250 million dollars.

F8. After Benghazi, Obama said virtually the same thing with regard to the people responsible,

F9. Obama has brought no responsible party's to justice in the 4 years since Benghazi.

F10. Both the Mainstream Media and the DNC had a very high degree of confidence that Hillary would win the general election in November.

F11. Presidents usually win re-election and if Hillary had won in 2016, the DNC would not have had to go through another primary process until 2024.

F12. Ben Rhodes bragged about how reporters don't question news they are given, that reporters are young, inexperienced and easily duped.

Ok, those are quite a few facts, let us assemble them into some conclusions:

Conclusion1. The Mainstream Media's credibility has been badly damaged as it betrayed it's integrity (F1, F3)

C2. The DNC's credibility has been badly damaged as it betrayed the DNC voters and chose Hillary without regard to the wishes of DNC voters. (F2, F3)

C3. The DNC learned who had leaked the emails and murdered Seth Rich (F3, F4, F5)

C4: The same thing will happen to the latest target of Obama as the Benghazi perpetrators, that is to say 'nothing'.

So those are some reasonable conclusions that can be reached, with brings us to a point were we can speculate a little about what has happened since the election:

Speculation1: The DNC was shocked to find that not only had it lost, but that it would need to start running a nation primary in just 3 years (maybe less), not 7 years. What would DNC voters do, when reminded how the DNC had betrayed them in 2016? Perhaps DNC voters would conclude that the RNC was a party that could, at least, be trusted to honor the results of the primary--even when they obviously didn't like them. Would DNC voters flock to the RNC? If so, would the DNC be finished as a major political party? (F10, F11, C2)

S2: Establishment players of both the DNC and the RNC find value in preserving the status quo. If the DNC were finished as a major party, that would change politics in America for 2 generations, with unpredictable results. Would it really be that difficult for major establishment politicians to convince the CIA that the stability of the country were at stake? If so, then major establishment players (such a Diane Feinstein and John McCain) could entreat the CIA to help them preserve the 2-Party duopoly by having them speculate in the following manner:

If both the DNC and the RNC were 'hacked' by some 3rd party, then the DNC could claim that it is no worse that the RNC-- only that the RNC didn't have their information leaked. All it would take is a little speculation by some establishment politicians and a couple reporters and the rest of the Mainstream Media would run with it. Remember the Mainstream Media stands to gain from the narrative as well. (F6, F7, F12, C1, C4)

S3: DNC voters are particularly unhappy, not only were they betrayed, but it was all for nothing. And they really don't want to leave the DNC, but what choice have they?

Sometimes a person is betrayed by a spouse in the most blatant manner possible. This is the case with DNC voters and the DNC. And, just like a person who really doesn't want to leave, all the cheating spouse has to do is tell a lie. It doesn't matter that the lie is obvious and transparently false-- the person wants the lie to be true and will do everything possible to believe it. Just as DNC voters want something to believe, no matter how unfounded. If DNC voters can make themselves believe that somehow the DNC is not any more corrupt than the RNC, then they can stay with it-- and they want to!

And that is what this is all about. It has nothing to do with Russian hacking or Russians influencing the US national elections

This is about preserving the 2-party duopoly in the US and giving DNC voters something, anything to believe so that they can stay with the DNC. That is also why it has taken so long for this to come about, nearly a month after they lost the election the DNC realized that they had blown a hole in the side of their ship and that voters were going to abandon them. The need to make DNC voters think that the RNC ship is similarly weak with corruption so they don't leave.

And it worked. Look around, Democrats are more than happy with the smokescreen that has been thrown up-- just listen to how they speak about it. They want to believe it. They need to believe it.

Nothing will come of the investigations into the 'Russian involvement', but that won't matter. In 4 years (less!) DNC voters will say to themselves 'You know, I think there was more to the Russian hacking than we were told. I think they got the same kind of dirt on the RNC, but just didn't release it.'

'You can fool some of the people all of the time,
And you can fool all of the people some of the time...'

I think we figured out who the 'some of the people' are.

Why so Polemical?

Why so Polemical?

Let me give a little background for how I have arrived at the present time as a person whom some label as 'argumentative'. This begins many, many years ago when it occurred to me that if all the people who are capable of it would behave morally, the world would be a better place. I'm Captain Obvious, you say? Well, sure, but I wasn't speaking of anything complicated or as involved as morality found in religion. Just the most simple moral principle that could be followed by nearly everyone: "Don't treat others the way you wouldn't want to be treated". The Golden Rule. I'm not the only person, and I am far from the first, to observe that if everyone who was capable of it, would follow this simple rule, then most of the world's problems would simply vanish. That is where this story starts.

Fast forward to 6 years ago; In Wisconsin, the passage of Act 10 causes a massive uproar. This happens just as social media is coming into it's own and presents a great opportunity to learn about the views of conservatives and liberals from the people who hold them. I started having conversations and found that this was a fast way to reduce the number of people on a person's friends list. Sigh. Despite this effect, I persisted and trying to learn the mental machinery of both conservatives and liberals.

Fast forward to the present day; With the stunning defeat in state and national politics I sensed and opportunity to advance my knowledge. While prior to November 8th, liberals were unwilling to listen to the concerns of conservatives when their President sat in the White House with his pen and his phone, after November 8th things were very different. I expected that liberals would shift --wishing to be given a fair hearing themselves-- to grudgingly giving conservatives and their concerns a fair hearing. I was stunned when I found that even when their unethical behavior was pointed out liberals still completely refuse to give conservatives a fair hearing!

So clearly there is a ethical malfunction within the liberal mind, which is confounding enough. I have personally encountered individuals who will point-blank refuse to listen and understand the concerns of conservatives while yet wishing to have their own concerns heard and understood--in the present moment!

Why so Polemical?

I'm not, but I am short on patience because this sort of double-standard. It amounts to intentional hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is something that I find personally detestable (here is some of why that is). But I also find that this ethical malfunction of the liberal mind to be deeply disturbing for another reason...

How far does it go?? I wonder.

If liberals refuse to be ethical to conservatives in the political arena and the social arena, then where does it end? This is not an idle or capricious question, it is deadly serious.
Here's why:

We always wonder how things like the holocaust and Rwanda could happen. Clearly, such a thing cannot happen without the people involved suspending their ethics towards their victims.

Am I saying that there is a homicidal maniac within every liberal? Well, before the genocide, would any visitor to Rwanda have said that vast numbers of Rwandans are capable of the wholesale slaughter of other Rwandans? Would the same have been said of Germans of that time prior to the Holocaust?

So is there a homicidal maniac within every liberal?

I don't know. And the only way for me to find out is to have conversations and reach
understanding. BUT! Every single liberal I have encountered has been both unwilling to open up and
discuss their reasons and motivations (here is what I think of that) and uninterested in understanding the concerns of others.
Until I am able to find this out myself, the question of the depths of this dysfunction is very,
very concerning.



Footnote: While liberals may ultimately laugh at the whole issue, that is a fool's response for
two reasons: first, conservatives (or at least Republicans) are in a position to laugh right back
and do what they will with country and Wisconsin. Second, there are about 90 million people in the
country who are not amused and will keep the constitutionally protected arms nearby, just in case.