Sunday, March 04, 2007

Global Warming, a Consensus Opinion

With McCarthyite demands, the left insists that there is more than enough evidence, and we need to act now. If you question the "evidence" then you are denounced soundly of being a tool of the corporations, or a paid spokesman, or worse.

The argument is that there is a Consensus of Opinion in favor of Global Warming Theory. I am in love with History, and understand that consensus of opinion existed many times in history. One of the obvious ones I mentioned before is Eugenics. All of my previous posts on Global Warming are here.

The BBC is putting a show on which questions the Global Warming science. Good I declare, because no idea should be so sacrosanct that it can't be discussed. That is what the left decries and claims is McCarthyism, while demanding the same strict interpretations of Global Warming. Hypocrisy is a major mark of the modern Leftist in case you hadn't noticed.

Other times in history where Consensus of Opinion was accepted and in fact demanded to be accepted by all were none to great looking back at history. We have the Inquisition, where not only was the consensus of opinion accepted, people were punished and tortured to insure they accepted it. We have other examples, the Consensus of Opinion in 1490 was that the earth was flat. The Consensus of Opinion in 1900 was that heavier than air flight was impossible. The Consensus of Opinion in 1940 was that man could not survive travel beyond the speed of sound barrier. If History hasn't shown you this lesson, then allow me to make it plain. A Consensus of Opinion is nothing more than everyone being convinced that they are right, even if they are wrong.

We all know the examples, 1500 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the Universe. The leading thinkers all believed it, and people were required to believe this. Now, we have better science, yet we continue to assume we know it all. Modern medicine didn't exist until the 1880's when medicine discovered Bacteria. Wow, knowledge we all take for granted, we assume was always known, painfully obvious, yet we are learning NEW things all the time. Things we learn today may prove a well known thing wrong tomorrow.

The obvious point to that is that we don't know what we will learn tomorrow. We don't know as much as we think we do. Like teenagers, we assume we have all the knowledge we need, and defiantly tell the world that we know enough thanks, and they can butt out. The difference is that Teenagers are supposed to have this abundance of confidence, to which they have no real grounds nor right, yet they are supposed to mature, and learn of the true complexities of life, from personal experience. We were all teenagers, and all erroneously believed we were the first to discover so much about life. Yet, as the years, and life experiences pass by, we learn that there is a lot more we don't understand.

Winston Churchill is purported to have said that if you aren't a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you aren't a Conservative at 30, you have no brain. Do you understand what Mr. Churchill was saying? At 20, you are supposed to be passionate, supposed to believe all the ills of the world can be easily solved, easily fixed. All the problems are so obviously simple, that you don't understand why the elders haven't done it. Perhaps they are too stupid, too ignorant, or just too lazy to fix these problems. People are homeless, build shelters, open them, provide food for them. Yet, the homeless don't go to the shelters, unless it is especially cold. They don't show up for the food regularly. The Homeless don't behave as you think they will. We have poor people, it's obvious isn't it? We need to give them programs that will make it possible for them to have the necessities. Food, shelter, medical, and all the other things. Yet, despite having those programs, there are still poor, many who don't participate in the programs. Also, the programs don't address the core problem. The Why that lurks behind the what you see as wrong. Our elders tried to tell us about educating the poor and downtrodden, and leaving the choices to them. Yet, we teenagers ignored the elders, and demanded action. Later, when we are older, the cycle continues, and we realize our elders were right when they said "if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime."

We turn to the next generation, the next teenagers, and tell them this wisdom that we now understand is true, and we are treated the same way we treated our elders, and the cycle continues.

Global Warming may be true, I doubt it, yet because there is a consensus of opinion doesn't make it science. It makes it a belief. Science is something we can prove. Quantum theory is proven daily, by bar code scanners, by computers, in our daily lives. It is the science that we use to make machines work. Yet, we assign this same level of proven science to Global Warming, because some people THINK it is true. That doesn't make it science, science is something you can prove is true. The earth was round, and Christopher Columbus didn't fall off the edge in 1492 as many said he would. He didn't find India as he expected, but he did find out the earth was a sphere. He proved that the earth was round to the world. Until he did demonstrate the truth, we should not blame people for believing what they all thought was true.

However we should learn that because we believe something may be true, doesn't make it fact. Global Warming, caused by man, is not factual, factual means it's proven true. We haven't yet gotten to that point. We aren't even to the point of setting up the vessels to sail to the edge of the world to explore, much less ready to describe what we found there.


Hit Counter