Because Science
As a conservatarian (combined libertarian/conservative) I am frequently referred to as a science denier, by people who only think they know what I believe. Whether it is climate change (where they have to adapt new numbers every year so that their theory works) Or gender, or whatever, I am always considered anti-science (along with deplorable, clinger, homophobic, sexist, racist, zenophobic, transphobic, and on and on.) Look I am no scientist, (though I am about to graduate with a political SCIENCE degree lol) but some things should seem obvious.
Just like the leader of this or that religious group proclaiming the end of the world, it becomes very awkward when the dire predictions are given an expiration date, and nothing happens. Of course, why we don't also compare this to people in regards to science is a good question in and of itself.
First, I am referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her ridiculous Green New Deal. Scroll to the previous blog for more. She has said that we have 12 years until some catastrophic event happens due to a slight surplus of a perfectly natural gas (that is, FYI, essential for plant survival, and which, if they were really serious, would be telecommuting from home, vegan, and walking around with filters on their faces to capture that carbon dioxide they expel simply from existing) Here is the bottom line.
If there truly were only 12 years left, there would be nothing we could do now to stop that from happening, and should be taxing the crap out of people to colonize Mars, or something, not trying to stop something so imminent. They aren't serious.
But what do I know? Any other time the party of "Science" has gotten it wrong?
The most recent was Algore Jr.s ten year doomsday clock that expired 3 years ago. Of course, Algore is every bit the scientist I am, but for some reason his propaganda film was shown in science classes all over this country, and for all I know, all over the world.
How about the original Earth Day? April 22, 1970? What was the doomsday scenario then? Global cooling! That is right, we were facing an imminent Ice Age, that would wipe out most or all of the population of the earth, and most species. Although between a new Ice Age, and the moderate warming even the most ardent climate types are claiming, the warming would support more life. By the way, if they believed their own garbage, wouldn't they be moving from the coast in droves? And if they aren't, should they qualify for a bailout when their property is flooded?
Or how about Paul Ehrlich, and the Population bomb? Written in 1968, it was ground zero in the zero population movement. This "scientist" predicted with assurance that the world would face massive starvation due to an overpopulation of the world (1970 population 3.7 billion, today more than 7 billion) He predicted that the mass starvation would be during the 1970s and 80s (no doubt due to that global cooling which was going to happen) Today fewer are starving even though there are nearly twice as many people as then). Hmm. Thing is, this crazy theory has returned. via Ms. Green New Deal Boss herself, who has claimed that we need to stop having children.
Of course, as a break from the serious "science" we have been discussing, I would point out the bad strategy of having fewer children when it is those children that are going to pay for Social Security and Medicare in the future (from 17 workers per retiree in the 1930s, to 2.3 workers per retiree today)
Should we continue or do you get the idea? Look, I am not for dirty air, or dirty water, but to call a perfectly natural byproduct of living pollution is nuts. Not enough?
How many times did we hit peak oil? (maximum production of a product) Peak food? Peak coal? You see, all of these things were predicted by "scientists". How are those climaxes now?
Any scientist that doesn't approach a question, no matter what it is with: "you're wrong and I am going to prove it" isn't a scientist worth anything. That much I have learned on the way to my degree.
Just like the leader of this or that religious group proclaiming the end of the world, it becomes very awkward when the dire predictions are given an expiration date, and nothing happens. Of course, why we don't also compare this to people in regards to science is a good question in and of itself.
First, I am referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her ridiculous Green New Deal. Scroll to the previous blog for more. She has said that we have 12 years until some catastrophic event happens due to a slight surplus of a perfectly natural gas (that is, FYI, essential for plant survival, and which, if they were really serious, would be telecommuting from home, vegan, and walking around with filters on their faces to capture that carbon dioxide they expel simply from existing) Here is the bottom line.
If there truly were only 12 years left, there would be nothing we could do now to stop that from happening, and should be taxing the crap out of people to colonize Mars, or something, not trying to stop something so imminent. They aren't serious.
But what do I know? Any other time the party of "Science" has gotten it wrong?
The most recent was Algore Jr.s ten year doomsday clock that expired 3 years ago. Of course, Algore is every bit the scientist I am, but for some reason his propaganda film was shown in science classes all over this country, and for all I know, all over the world.
How about the original Earth Day? April 22, 1970? What was the doomsday scenario then? Global cooling! That is right, we were facing an imminent Ice Age, that would wipe out most or all of the population of the earth, and most species. Although between a new Ice Age, and the moderate warming even the most ardent climate types are claiming, the warming would support more life. By the way, if they believed their own garbage, wouldn't they be moving from the coast in droves? And if they aren't, should they qualify for a bailout when their property is flooded?
Or how about Paul Ehrlich, and the Population bomb? Written in 1968, it was ground zero in the zero population movement. This "scientist" predicted with assurance that the world would face massive starvation due to an overpopulation of the world (1970 population 3.7 billion, today more than 7 billion) He predicted that the mass starvation would be during the 1970s and 80s (no doubt due to that global cooling which was going to happen) Today fewer are starving even though there are nearly twice as many people as then). Hmm. Thing is, this crazy theory has returned. via Ms. Green New Deal Boss herself, who has claimed that we need to stop having children.
Of course, as a break from the serious "science" we have been discussing, I would point out the bad strategy of having fewer children when it is those children that are going to pay for Social Security and Medicare in the future (from 17 workers per retiree in the 1930s, to 2.3 workers per retiree today)
Should we continue or do you get the idea? Look, I am not for dirty air, or dirty water, but to call a perfectly natural byproduct of living pollution is nuts. Not enough?
How many times did we hit peak oil? (maximum production of a product) Peak food? Peak coal? You see, all of these things were predicted by "scientists". How are those climaxes now?
Any scientist that doesn't approach a question, no matter what it is with: "you're wrong and I am going to prove it" isn't a scientist worth anything. That much I have learned on the way to my degree.
Comments
Post a Comment