Tag Archives: global warming

(Prison) Wall of Denial

Here’s a little update to my last post, “War on Dissenters.”  No less an eminent figure than Al Gore himself, high priest of the Church of Climatology, also said, at a speech at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival down in Austin, that  “climate change deniers” (whatever that means, exactly) need to be “punished.”  Though apparently, unlike others I mentioned calling for prison time, he didn’t specify exactly how this punishment should take place.  Perhaps all “Deniers” (meaning, from what I gather, anyone who opposes more punitive “environmental” government regulations on business and agriculture) would be shipped off to a Climate-Denier Gulag somewhere.  Not sure where it would be; I hear, due to global warming, Siberia is getting too warm to be effectively punitive, like it was in the good old days of the USSR.

Believe it or not, once upon a time, liberals actually used to support free speech!

Gore also praised Pope Francis (“How about that Pope!”) for being on board the statist “climate change” bandwagon.  I don’t know about you, but I have so much more confidence in the Pope, knowing he has Al Gore’s approval.

Of course, it’s not clear how long free speech will last on Al Gore’s great invention, the Internet, after the Democrat members of the FCC (evidently on the orders of Dear Leader) voted last month to put more regulation on the internet under Title II rules.  No doubt, it’s only a matter of time before Big Brother starts finding ways to “regulate” and punish dissenters and “deniers” on teh interwebz.  So enjoy my denial and dissent while you still can, folks!

 

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The War on Dissenters

Every time you hear talk denouncing a “war” on something not an actual military enemy, get your shovel ready, because what invariably follows is an avalanche of nonsensical bullshit designed to drown out all rational thought and any opposition whatever to the lefty Party Line.

You might recall all the ridiculous hysteria from the Left in 2010 over the alleged “Republican War on Women.”  Dare suggest that maybe people should pay for their own damn contraceptives, and you’re a horrible misogynistic monster who hates all women, and no doubt supports full legalization of rape.

(Expect this nonsensical rhetoric to return with a vengeance once Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Jackass Party’s next Anointed One, takes the presidential nomination.)

Well the cover of the latest issue of National Geographic magazine warns us of a “War on Science.”   Apparently, an Army of Darkness made up of Global Warming Deniers, Creationists, anti-vaccine folks, and others, have their big guns set on the guys in the white coats, ready to blow them off the face of the earth and plunge us all back into the Dark Ages .  (Clearly a much bigger national security threat than, say, ISIS, who are after all, only victims of Capitalist-induced poverty, in need of better jobs from the government.)

National Geographic still provides quality geographic and nature stories and photography, but lately its editor’s leftist ideological slant has come to rival that of the dope-suckers at Rolling Stone.

Of course, when “liberals” whine about a “war” on something, what they really mean is that (oh the horror!) there are people out there who disagree with them on something.   That thought is in itself absolutely intolerable to the bleeding hearts.

Take the global warming (or “climate change” if you prefer) issue.  Everyone must support the Party Line that a) not only is the earth currently in a warming trend (an increase of 1.5° F over the past couple centuries), but b) that this is mostly caused by humans burning CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses,” and c) will lead to climatic catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, and (this is the important part!) d) that draconian government measures will save us from the Climate Apocalypse.

Cast even the slightest doubt on any parts of this and you’re a hopelessly ignorant and/or evil “Denier,” which, in nice progressive circles, places you on the scale of scumbaggery somewhere between a child molester and a Nazi Party member.  “Deniers” and other heretics in this secular religion of Climate Apocalypse and the Almighty State as Savior must be punished by denying research funds, academic tenure, and even – according to a rising chorus of leftists from Bobby Kennedy Jr. to popular bloggers —  actual prison time!  That’s right; throw all dissenters behind bars!  And some still deny the enthusiasm for Soviet-style totalitarianism on the American Left.  And they call us conservatives fascists.  Can’t make this stuff up, folks.

There are actually plenty of serious scientists who don’t buy the man-made climate apocalypse scenario, and, no, most of them are not political right-wingers nor on the payroll of Big Oil.

Science was traditionally built on the method of subjecting all hypotheses to rigorous testing before arriving at any known conclusion, rather than on some democratic “consensus,” but now all evidence which contradictions politically correct conclusions are to be dismissed off-hand and vigorously suppressed by those holding the “consensus” view.  (You might recall that geocentrism was once the majority scientific consensus.)  “Scientific” fundamentalism at its finest,

Regarding the creation/evolution debate, not only must you believe in the biological evolution of species, but you must not deviate from strictly materialist Darwinist dogma, which insists that the whole process, and the origins of life itself, came about through nothing but pure, dumb, directionless chance.  (It’s simply not true that intelligent design theory is simply a code word for literalist six-day young-earth creationism.  The biologists who proposed intelligent design actually believe in evolution; they just don’t believe that mere dumb luck can account for all its workings.)

It’s similar regarding the origins of the universe itself.   Belief in a divine Creator who is the source of all being is to be dismissed as superstitious nonsense unworthy of belief by rational, scientific persons. But the equally unscientific but far more hip and fashionable (yet much more unbelievable, imho) belief that the entire universe simply pooped itself into existence uncaused out of nothing is to be lauded as “Reason” and “Science.”

Somehow this has become a major political issue with the bleeding hearts.  I even heard one say that belief in evolution was his most important criteria for judging politicians.

Personally, I hold the no doubt backwards and unscientific view what politicians think about evolution is completely irrelevant to anything, and that it is not the place of the federal government to dictate to schools and teachers what they must teach.

But that’s really at the core of the entire issue – today’s secularist “liberals” see indoctrination of the masses in an atheistic ideology as a duty of the Almighty State.  You know, like they did in enlightened lands like the USSR.

After all, belief in a transcendent God is dangerously subversive to the belief in an all-good, all-powerful State that is central to leftist ideology.

But it’s not just global warming and evolution.  In debates on every social issue from abortion to “gay marriage,” liberals reverently invoke the name of “Science” like that of some mighty pagan deity.  Of course, the god “Science” seems to always predictably favor the left-wing stance.

Properly speaking, of course, the physical sciences cannot themselves determine the morality – the rightness or wrongness–  of any human action.  That’s the job of moral philosophy or theology, which of course is immediately dismissed as “unscientific.”

 

With this widespread growth of materialist atheism and loss of Christian Faith in the Western world, along with the rise in horrific violence and persecution of Christians by radical Muslims elsewhere, you’d think the Vicar of Christ would have plenty to talk about.

But, we’re informed on good authority that Pope Francis is instead busy writing an encyclical on the horrors of Climate Change, something which (whether you agree or not), everyone’s already heard about ad nauseum from secular sources from Al Gore to NPR to National Geographic.

But, heck, maybe he’ll once again get his smilin’ face on the cover of the Rolling Stone.  Or maybe even the National Geographic.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cold, Hard Facts & the Hot Air of Lefty Moralism

Here, I am, sitting here freezing my royal right-wing rear end off in sunny Texas, reading about the heroic rescue mission of the rescue mission of the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy, which had been trapped in unusually heavy ice off the Antarctic coast.   The ship was on an “eco-tourism” mission, led by an Australian “climate-change professor,” to explore the effects of global warming.  The irony of this incident, while largely ignored by the “mainstream” media (newsflashes generally said nothing of the purpose of the ship’s voyage), was quickly picked up by conservative media, sparking more of the usual quarrelling over “global warming.”

At the same time, much of the U.S. is in the grip of an exceptional cold front, and last summer, a satellite measured the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth

It’s true that individual cold fronts and satellite temperature recordings don’t in themselves disprove the existence of man-made global warming (though, as others have pointed out, imagine the massive media hoopla that would result if that satellite had recorded, rather than the coldest temp, the hottest temperature ever on earth!).

However , the common leftist creed of imminent secular apocalypse –in which our only hope for salvation lies in massive government taxation, spending, and regulation– is looking nowadays increasingly less like proven, scientific fact, and more like ideologically-driven hysterical hot air.

After all, not long ago, Al Gore and other climate-change evangelists solemnly assured us that polar ice would soon be completely gone, and after centuries of fluctuations, global temperature would perpetually sky-rocket ever-upward, per the infamous “hockey-stick” graph.

Some scientists believe that, due to natural fluctuations in the solar activity, the earth is set to enter a period of cooling, perhaps even another ice age.  Don’t get me wrong; I’m no climate change Denier (the ultimate modern heresy, next to “homophobia”).  Climate change is very real – centuries ago, glaciers extended clear into Ohio.  However, the climate appears to be affected by many unpredictable factors, of which man-made “greenhouse gasses” may be only a comparatively small component.

For a long time, folks on the left used the allegedly dire threat of global warming as a means of claiming the moral high ground.  See, according to the lefties, if I was really, truly pro-life (instead of a phony right-wing wannabe), I would put aside my childish obsession with abortion, and focus instead on the graver evil of Global Warming, which, unless massive government action was taken NOW, would kill nearly everyone on the planet.

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

But, hey, much as it sucks, better for the government to increase its support of the slaughter of the unborn than to allow everyone to roast like marshmallows from conservative-caused global warming (CCGW).

See, not only was I an idiot for clinging to my guns and religion and failing to jump aboard the Hope’n’Change bandwagon, but leftists even insinuated that I was a horrible parent and outright monster, willing to sacrifice the future of my own children (and all life on earth) for the sake of right-wing ideology and the Evil Oil Barons (maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh).

(Call me a heartless cynic, but I remain of the belief that the weather will be just the same whether Elephants or Jackasses are elected to high office.  Enviro measures such as cap’n’trade will only increase energy prices, hurting the poor most, and push yet more polluting industry to unregulated places like China.)

The other great moral claim of the Left (especially the Catholic Left) was, of course, Obamacare.  If we were “truly pro-life” (in the beautiful Seamless Garment tradition), we must support Obama and socialized medicine, or else millions of poor folks would die in the streets.

All us right-wingers were really mean cold-hearted bastards for opposing it.

(Those righteous and dutiful defenders of the Almighty Welfare State, the U.S. Bishops, were shocked –shocked! – when the law enforcing the socialized medicine they had so piously pushed for turned around to bite them in their collective holy ass by forcing businesses and organizations to buy insurance plans covering contraception and abortifacients.   I don’t think it paranoia to surmise that coverage of surgical abortions will be next.)

Of course, Obamacare has already proven itself be just as much of a fraud as the “global warming” racket will no doubt prove to be, and now only the most die-hard lefties and Obamaites still support it.  The only ones to gain from either are the politicians and bureaucrats running the ever-more-rapidly growing Leviathon state.

It’s past time men of good will, especially Catholics, wise up and stop falling for such stupendous statist scams.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Through Polarized Lenses

There’s a new book out by Jeffrey Bell, The Case for Polarized Politics, which makes the shocking argument that campaigning on “divisive” “social issues” can in fact be a winning campaign strategy for conservative politicians. (I learned of the book thanks to a review by Phil Lawler on CatholicCulture.org.) As I have not, as of yet, read the book, I will not discuss it further in this rant. But today I will rant on an old and more basic pet peeve of mine: the common and long-standing practice by those of the Left of denouncing everyone and everything to their right as “polarizing” or “divisive.”

Whenever somebody says something or takes a stance that’s in anyways at odds with liberal politically-correct orthodox opinion, you can always count on somebody on the left condemning it as “polarizing” or “divisive” – whether it’s Republican congressmen who vote against any one of Obama’s schemes, conservative talk-radio hosts, or anyone else not fully on board with the whole lefty program. Apparently we need to just shut up and gather together holding hands and singing Kumbaya in unified solidarity behind Dear Leader.

For instance, I recall a few years ago, while looking up local independent country singer Austin Cunningham’s song “Guns and Religion,” reading a post on a Texas music blog which denounced the tune as “divisive garbage” which should not receive airplay. I mean, how dare a musician sing a song with anything but a leftwing message! Of course songs with lefty protest undertones, for example, criticizing Bush or the Iraq War (actually not uncommon in the Texas indie music scene), are generally praised by the likes of that hipster music blogger as courageous truth-telling. But if you put out a little number singing the praises of guns and religion while knocking Dear Leader, you’d better shut up, lest your dissent stir up “division” amongst the hoi polloi.

When you strip away the attempts at high-minded rhetoric, this line of attack translates to simply, “Agree with us or shut the hell up!” Not exactly in keeping with lefties’ self-image as rational, tolerant, open-minded folks immune from the constraints of authoritarian thought. In fact, I can’t think of a stupider or lazier line of critique than condemning a point of view simply on the grounds of it being opposed to one’s own.

And this whole “divisive/polarizing” line does appear to be the almost exclusive property of the Left. I’ve certainly heard folks on the right accuse folks on the left of many things, but being “polarizing” or “divisive” is not among them. If you hear someone bitching about “polarization” or “divisiveness,” it’s a sure bet that person’s of a left-leaning persuasion. When I attack a liberal’s or leftist’s ideas or arguments, it’s because I find them wrong-headed, destructive, morally repulsive, or simply stupid, but never just because I find them “divisive” or “polarizing” (which would simply be saying that they disagree with me or other conservatives, which should go without saying).

Does it ever occur to left-wingers that many of their own favorite views and agendas are in fact “divisive” and “polarizing” to those of us who don’t share their worldview? Does it ever occur to them that there are in fact other points of view besides their own? Besides the utter lazy stupidity of the “polarizing” line of attack, I believe its prevalence in liberal rhetoric is revealing of the mindset of much of the current left.

For all its precious talk of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the Left is consistently intolerant of any diversity of opinion from its own viewpoints. For the Left, its own is the only legitimate point of view, and opposing points of view must be relentlessly silenced or marginalized.  This can be seen in the ruthless suppression of politically-incorrect ideas in much of the left-dominated worlds of academic and media institutions. (The great Mark Steyn refers to these folks as “Conformicrats” and the “Comformocracy.”) Any dissent from the notion that man-made global warming is heading us towards environmental apocalypse–or that massive government taxing, spending, and regulation is needed to save us–is dismissed as “propaganda” or “anti-science” (even if it comes from solid research at ivy-league universities), and the powers that be will ensure that the results of such studies go unpublished. Likewise with any suggestion that anything could be behind the creation and evolution of the universe and life on earth beyond blind, mindless chance (despite some very compelling evidence to the contrary from serious scientific researchers).  It can also be seen in the eagerness of many liberals to seek out any excuse to get right-leaning talk show hosts yanked off the air.  Any arguments in favor of a return to standards of “traditional morality”are denounced off-hand as “bigotry and “hate.” And any opposition to any aspects of statist “liberalism” and the notion that yet more government spending is the solution to all our ills is brushed aside as being driven by “racism” or other ugly motives, or is simply beyond the pale of educated opinion. Or, if that doesn’t stick, you can always just denounce it as “divisive.”

In countless online debates on any number of subjects I’ve read or been involved in, it seems that while conservative actually engage in reasoned argumentation, the “arguments” of those on the left consist overwhelmingly of labeling (“stupid,” bigoted,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” etc., etc.), name-calling, and personal insults and ad-hominem attacks (all the while praising their own superior intelligence and open-mindedness).  There are few people more narrowly conformist and doctrinaire than the “tolerant” “free-thinking” “liberal.”

Formal censorship is in fact unnecessary when you can create a general culture of opinion in which any deviation from the party line is instantly dismissed and disregarded as simply unthinkable. Somewhere in the depths of Hell, Uncle Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao are beaming proudly.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,