There is no better example of the intersection of modern technology and contemporary politicking than that of the ongoing debate over “climate change.” The alleged phenomenon once marketed as “global warming” takes as its thesis the notion that human industry, human technology, is the root of all evil – that this human industry must be constrained and curtailed, that the use of technology to better human lives is a sinful indulgence that must be punished. This is the root of all rancor over whether “global warming” is or is not actually happening. Even if we stipulate that human activity does alter climate to our collective detriment, we are left with the same problem: Do we punish society and lower standards of living in the name of trying (perhaps in vain) to stop the “climate change” we aren’t certain is taking place?
This is the facet of the “climate change” debate invariably lost in the divisive bickering over it. Liberals always demand that we curtail and constrain technology in ways that hurt our economy, that hurt individual citizens and that cripple entire industries. Whether it is hamstringing the coal industry through onerous environmental regulations, essentially outlawing the nation’s only lead-smelting plant through the same means, or foisting on the American public technology that isn’t ready and that consumers don’t want (electric car, anyone?), “climate change” is always held up as the justification. Never is the harm done considered in the equation; rarely do our lawmakers even stop to consider whether we can, through these regulatory punishments, reverse or arrest “global warming.”
But these are realistic concerns; these treat people like individuals with rights, rather than serfs to be dominated. Therefore, to the liberal these realistic concerns must be ignored, dismissed and ridiculed. Belief in climate change, in global warming, has become a religion of the left-wing, holy writ to be taken on faith. Dare to oppose it, dare to dissent, and you will be labeled a “denier.” This language was selected deliberately because it evokes the phrase “Holocaust denier” – reprehensible people who claim the murder of millions of Jews by Nazis in World War II never happened or has been exaggerated. This is important because it goes to the heart of how liberals deal with dissent: They don’t. A “progressive” does not abide any opinion but his own. Opposition, to a liberal, isn’t just incorrect; it’s illegal, or it should be.
Liberal fish-wrapper The Los Angeles Times has banned “deniers” from its editorial pages. If you are skeptical of any aspect of climate change or global warming, your letter to this liberal rag will not be published. That is because the “progressives” do not accept dissenting opinions, will not debate them and seek to silence them. There is no science but progressive science, no law but liberals’ law, and thou shalt have no other opinions before Glorious Leader Obama’s. But the climate change orthodoxy, the liberal fascism, the establishment of thoughtcrime as presciently described by George Orwell, does not stop there.
As reported by J.D. Tuccille, RIT philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello considers it “criminally negligent” to believe that “climate change” and “global warming” are not real – no matter how many times we learn of fraud in promoting the concept, no matter how many facts Al Gore got wrong in “An Inconvenient Truth,” and no matter how strident global warming believers become in their hectoring of those who disagree.
You aren’t hallucinating. This wretched little liberal believes the only valid opinion on global warming is to embrace it as a true believer. Fail, and you are not just wrong; you are not just a bad person; you are a criminal, and you deserve to be punished. That’s what we do with criminals, after all. We jail them. We make them pay, sometimes for the rest of their lives. In some cases we even kill them – and that is what the liberals would do to you for disagreeing, if only they can make enough people believe your opinions are so illegitimate as to justify your execution.
No less an autocrat than Dictator for Life Obama – he of the imperial presidency, who bends and reinterprets laws at executive whim regardless of the authority to do so – has repeatedly declared all arguments over his policies ended. “The American people agree with me” is a favorite refrain for Obama, who has never met a disagreement he could not declare concluded. He is, in fact, nearly frantic to demand that people stop questioning him. His haughty demeanor, his elevated beak, his arrogant condemnations of those who dare to oppose him are all part and parcel of that desperation. This is why Obama insulted the Supreme Court at a previous State of the Union speech (because he thought they might rule against his desires). It is also why he yet again declared (sorry, that should read, lied) in his most recent SOTU address that climate change is “a fact” and that its science “is settled.”
These are lies.
The science of “climate change” is NOT settled. Liberals cannot even agree on a made-up percentage of climate scientists who are supposed to agree on the topic. They generally land somewhere in the high 90s, according to the libs, but some progressives will go so far as to claim there are no scientists anywhere, even in hiding, who dare to disbelieve in global warming.
Regardless, the numbers vary depending on the liar. Any assertion that there is scientific consensus on climate change is a lie. This is a politically charged topic in which there is still plenty of room for debate and argument.
Before we let the liberals ban or chain technology in the name of saving the environment, we ought to ask if these efforts are worth their cost. We ought to debate the likelihood such industrial shackles will change anything for the better. We need to investigate alternatives that don’t harm our economy or lower our standard of living.
We will do none of these things – because progressives would rather jail us or kill us than talk about reality.
Media wishing to interview Phil Elmore, please contact email@example.com.