Liberals love pushing a man-made global warming fairy tale with the expressed purpose of controlling our lives and taking our money. We’ve heard it a hundred times before: the science is settled. Anyone who disagrees that we are causing the destruction of our planet is a climate-denier and anti-science. That’s what makes an article on Slate today so freakin’ hilarious. The liberal website, in an effort to get you to accept man-made global warming, actually proves the science behind it is utter bullsh*t.
There’s No Place Like Home is a joint effort from Slate, Arizona State University, and a global warming project called Future Tense. The article, which is God-awful and boring beyond comprehension, asks the question: What can the Wizard of Oz tell us about global warming? The short answer is nothing. So is the long answer. This thing literally has nothing to do with The Wizard of Oz.
The piece starts out with this curious poke at anyone who still won’t drink the purple Kool-Aid:
No better example of the existence and consequences of this collective denial can be found than the ongoing debate over climate change, in which public discourse has plunged to levels of name-calling and character assassination that would humble a nursery school class.
Is there a lot of character assassination in nursery school? I realize it’s been a while since I attended but I primarily remember juice, crackers, and nap time.
Then we get to the part about how the science of global warming is settled, so long as you can suspend your disbelief in science:
Science ain’t what it used to be. Our ideal of science is of a highly structured activity for establishing cause-and-effect relationships that can be tested in the field and the laboratory. Now the focus is increasingly on computational models and scenarios aimed at exploring complex phenomena (such as climate change) that unfold on scales from the global to the molecular.
Did you catch that? Global warming science isn’t that kind of science you can prove; it’s based on computer models, which are subject to the input values from someone who is trying to push an agenda.
Having just admitted that the science of global warming is BS, the authors offer up this nifty explanation as to why we should still believe in it:
It does not apply to complex adaptive systems, in which the very process of separating out a single variable changes the underlying system unpredictably. Such systems cannot be replicated, and therefore cannot be subject to standard scientific processes of confirmation. No one can replicate global environmental conditions in such a way as to experimentally test climate change. For such complex systems, the best we can do is create complicated computer models. But creating a model necessarily involves generating a set of rules that determines what we include in the model and what we exclude.
Okay, so global warming can’t be proved using science and the only way to establish its existence is by having people, with a vested interest in selling the public on it, build a computer model that says it is so. Everyone that took a 7th grade science class can see the glaring hole in the global warming theory: conflict of interest.
And just in case you think I’m cherry-picking quotes and misinterpreting the author’s intent, here’s the summation:
…climate change is an emergent phenomenon of 300 years of industrialism—is not subject to the sort of verifiable and predictive understanding that characterized science of the sort that Copernicus, Newton, or even Einstein practiced.
Climate change/global warming is not something that science can verify or predict. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry than that.
The really effed up thing about this piece is that it admits global warming science is a lie but spends considerable time discussing how to force people to buy into it. It sinks so low as to suggest people can be scared into accepting global warming pseudo-science the same way the they surrendered their freedoms because of terrorist threats:
In this way the politics of fighting climate change share some similarities with those of fighting terrorism. Both have involved campaigns that use apocalyptic and extreme language in an attempt to create fear and insecurity among the public. Both seek to re-engineer society: In the case of global warming, for example, an important goal is to force broad changes in consumption and production patterns in the name of such meaningless goals as “saving the planet.”
Take note of that social engineering part because that’s the real goal of the man-made global hoax. This article actually has the nads to admit that saving the planet is meaningless.
Liberals accuse conservatives of being anti-science, but let’s take a look at the left’s “hard science” viewpoints: We have this article, which blatantly admits global warming is a farce, but insists we buy into it anyways. They also don’t believe the presence of a fetal heartbeat is an indication of life. Lastly, they think that someone born with a penis can put on a dress and be magically transformed into a woman.