Thursday, December 12, 2013

Ho-Hum: Another "Expert" Panel Pedaling Climate Change Scientology

Another "expert" scientific panel has "affirmed" the urgency of catastrophic climate change, and the NJ Star-Ledger has predictably appealed to that authority in continuing its propagandizing on The march of climate change.   

Citing the panel's report, the editors warn of "immense human suffering," melting ice caps, "more Hurricane Sandy-style storms (yes, style)," "the beetle infestation threatening the Pine Barrens [after having] ravaged tens of millions of acres of forests in the American West and Canada," "the sixth great mass extinction in the Earth’s history," "a 'moderately likely' risk over the next century of creating huge dead zones in the ocean ."

And we mustn't forget that "rain-fed agriculture could be devastated, creating food shortages and political chaos" in poor (largely undeveloped) countries.

I left these comments:

"Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public."—Alex Epstein, The Church of Climate Scientology.

And where does this ho-hum "panel of the nation’s best scientists " get its funding? Primarily, from the government; which means, from politicians. Is it any wonder that the results are just what statists want? Catastrophic man-made climate change is vital to the Left's commitment to omnipotent government. Thus, the politicization of climate "science."

But what's missing from the "expert authority's" litany of impending catastrophes? Recognition of the vital necessity of reliable, economical, large-scale energy production that powers man's industrial ability to cope with nature's brutality, which occurs in any climate. And what is the source of the vital industrial-scale energy? Primarily fossil fuels, with smaller but important contributions from nuclear and hydro-electric. What is a total failure? So-called, mis-named "renewable" energy like wind and solar, which always requires subsidies and, due to its utter unreliability, always requires back-up from hydro, nuclear, and especially fossil.

What's missing is recognition of the tremendous improvement in the Earth's environment made possible by fossil fuels. Humans in industrialized countries enjoy the most safe, clean, healthy, happiest living environments, and consequently the longest life expectancies, in history. Why are people in poor nations victims of climate change? For the same reason poor people have been victims of nature throughout pre-industrial history. Rather than whine that they are not to "blame" for climate change, they should become part of the "problem."

Anyone who cares about poor nations—and man's well-being in general—would advocate removal of all restrictions on the development of industrial-scale energy production, especially the production of fossil fuels. And that requires rejection of the Left's statist agenda. We should advocate the liberation of the individual human mind provided by even limited capitalistic political and economic freedom, because the individual human mind is the source of industrial progress, and freedom is the mind's fundamental social requirement. Finally, we should recognize the heroic contributions to human well-being generated by the fossil fuel industry. They are currently driving one of the few economic bright spots; the shale energy revolution. We owe them a silent thank-you.

[Note: The Report cited by the Star-Ledger is from the "independent" National Research Council, a member of The National Academies. The National Academies also includes Science, Engineering, and Medicine. They are all government chartered and report to government officials. The report was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, U.S. intelligence community, and the National Academies. None of this automatically disqualifies the scientific research they produce. But it does place the report under a cloud of suspicion, given the political clout of the Environmentalist lobby. For an excellent expose' on the dynamics at work in the climate change movement, see Ayn Rand's "The Establishing of an Establishment" in Philosophy, Who Needs It?.]

Related Reading:

Why I Don't Trust the "Climate Consensus"

Climate Cabal Exploits Sandy for Statist Ideological Purposes

Growing Antarctic Ice Sheet Belies "Melting Polar Caps" Hysteria

Now, the World's Looters Target America for "Climate Injustice"


Mike Kevitt said...

I haven't read this posting yet. I wanna make this comment first. Then I'll probably read it.

It's reasonable to try drilling reason into these birds' heads about something a few times, but, how many times, forsooth? They got the message. They reject it. They stand on their side of the line and that's that. Only one thing will move them. In time, the field of discussion will be exhausted and the troops will be poised on their respective sides of the line. I see only one reason, for the underdog, to delay that day.

That being the case, I'll read this posting.

Michael A. LaFerrara said...

As many times as the opportunity presents itself.

The purpose is not to convince the peddlers of this nonsense, but to present a rational point of view for the benefit of "lurkers" who might read it. Minds are never changed in the fashion of throwing a switch.

Ideas penetrate the culture by saturating the culture with repetition and persistence.

Mike Kevitt said...

I have to agree, and I do, as I said there's only one reason to delay that day I alluded to, and you named it, in order for the underdog(us)to turn the tables.