I was thinking of writing a short story about two guys playing billiards, each taking turns, first one guy then the other, and so on. But at a certain point, while the first guy is lining up his shot, the second guy, now standing behind him says, "No, it's not your turn." The first guy says it is his turn and he continues to prep for the shot. The second guy, now holding a pistol, says, "Sorry, Bill, but the game is over. Step away from the table." And he shoots the guy. The second guy proceeds to take all the shots he wants.In a free country, debate is (theoretically) open, with much disagreement and dialogue on every topic under the sun. But every once in a while, I sense that behind the velvet gloves are iron fists eagerly awaiting the day when all competing voices can be silenced forever.
Ayn Rand wrote about this in her books. Orwell, too, wrote about the thought police. And this article here by Charles Krauthammer raises the same concerns.
Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands.
Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over.
TO READ THE COMPLETE ARTICLE type the title of this article into your Google Search slot: Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology
3 comments:
>>>>>>>>>>I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Krauthammer doesn't name anyone who claims to know "exactly" where that leads -- because, in fact, no one claims that. He's fighting a straw man.
His instincts are right, though. It's not good to pump huge and increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is what we will keep on doing, until there are regulations against it.
The big polluters aren't going to stop on their own, any more than the mining companies quit dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior until the government told them they had to stop doing it.
Environmental regulations don't seem to have hurt European economies, which seem healthy, in comparison to the US economy. And with a lot less CO2 emissions per capita, besides.
>>>>>>>>>>>"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
That's laughable. The whole world can see what's been happening with freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity in the United States over the past 7 1/2 years, and it certainly wasn't the socialists or environmentalists who've been in power.
By the way, I'm very afraid that things are going to get way worse there, in all the above areas, and soon. I hope I'm wrong.
>>>>The big polluters aren't going to stop on their own, any more than the mining companies quit dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior until the government told them they had to stop doing it.
e: That is the tragedy. Business and government should work together, as should labor and management, as should nations and other nations, as should various religions and other religions, and the various races. Instead, we have power battles. To quote Dylan here, "This world is ruled by violence, but that's better left unsaid."
>>>> in the United States over the past 7 1/2 years
e. Oh please, this has been going on for a century and more... and it won't change going forward either, I do not believe, no matter who ends up in the White House.
>>>>>>>>e: That is the tragedy. Business and government should work together, as should labor and management, as should nations and other nations, as should various religions and other religions, and the various races. Instead, we have power battles. To quote Dylan here, "This world is ruled by violence, but that's better left unsaid."
Government is *controlled* by big business, in the United States. Which is why a Agribusiness Corporation like Cargill can sell and have to recall millions of pounds of filthy meat, and still stay in business, while a local farmer isn't even allowed to sell clean meat.
Here in the Lao PDR, big businesses are regulated by the government, while small neighborhood businesses are left to be regulated by the neighbors. It's kind of nice that the major banks weren't deregulated here, and so weren't making stupid subprime loans, and so, no one is losing their houses to foreclosure here.
And it's also kind of nice that when the telephone company, Lao Telecom, failed to provide the Internet speed they promised in their advertising, the government here made sure that they refunded their customers accordingly. The customers didn't have to hire expensive trial lawyers to get a refund, either, because it was written right into the telephone company's original charter, that they're not allowed to gouge their customers.
Heck yeah, I'm all FOR government regulation of big businesses, and leave the little guy alone, eh?
As far as nations working with nations, the great majority of world opinion was against the US invasion of Iraq. Bush defied the United Nations, and I distinctly remember pro-war Americans mocking the French and Germans for refusing to give their blessings to the war fever.
Did Iraq commit violence against the United States, or did the United States commit violence against Iraq?
"They might be gonna be making a bomb, so we'd better attack them first" is NOT cooperation with other nations, it is aggressive warfare, and under the United Nations Charter, it is illegal.
>>>>>>>>e. Oh please, this has been going on for a century and more... and it won't change going forward either, I do not believe, no matter who ends up in the White House.
It's not going forward, it's going backwards, and more and more quickly. My kids didn't have the same advantages that I had, and your kids won't have the same advantages that you had.
You're living under a low-key state of martial law, right now, which was never the case when you and I were young. And I'm very afraid it's going to get high-key martial law, real soon. I hope I'm wrong.
Post a Comment