NeoNote — Pagans and climate change
❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.
This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.
Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.
Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.
We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."
As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.
Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.
We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.
We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.
"Eppur si muove."
This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"
I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.
For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."
I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.
I am not anti-science.
I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.
What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.WhileWhy neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.
Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.
I think asking these questions is important.
It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.
I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””
*shrugs*
Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.
I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.
But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."
I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.
I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.
I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.
The first is Let me help.
The second is I can do better than that!
Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?
Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.
The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.
No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.
Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞
Comments
Another from the global warming front
Thursday - 08Sep2005 Filed in: Free Markets&Ecology
NeoNotes — government requires
❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?
Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?
Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?
Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.
Let's take another example or two, shall we?
Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?
Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?
Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?
Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.
Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.
Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.
The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."
Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.
And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.
Stop.
Step back. You are excusing their behavior.
Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.
Look at what is allowed within the groups.
Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.
What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.
Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.
It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.
And the courts were wrong.
Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.
If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?
Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?
Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.
Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.
Should government protect those people from my discrimination?
Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.
Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.
Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.
It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.
The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.
If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.
The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.
But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?
That wasn't what I said.
The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.
I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.
If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?
No, that is what you have been told that the model is.
I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.
For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.
So what exactly is the global average temperature?
I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.
I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.
And I think they are corrupting society.
Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?
I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.
“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”
One.
Once.
I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.
Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.
If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.
Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.
Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.
If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.
Not really.
That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.
Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?
Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers
And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.
You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.
Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.
Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.
The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.
I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.
Don't.
If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞