Have a Little Faith, Just Trust Me!
By Jim Yardley I was watching Congressman Henry Waxman going on about the dangers of the Keystone XL pipeline and how it would spew carbon into the air and make global warming even worse. It would appear that the distinguished congressman didn't get the memo that there has been no global warming in the past 10 years. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.
Yet people like Waxman rattle on about climate change (or whatever politically expedient phrase is currently in use) with the fanatical faith of a true zealot. Even if Mr. Waxman does represent that center of intellectual rigor that is Hollywood, it would be a lot more seemly if a member of Congress did not rely on "Trust me!" as a justification for attempting to control a vast swath of the American economy.
The climate change issue is championed by Liberal Progressive Democrats (L-P-Ds) such as Waxman, Al Gore and even our "smartest-guy-in-the-room" President. The support of these worthies is invariably accompanied by the underlying assumption that changes in the globe's climate are primarily caused by increases in man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. Consider the claims of potentially catastrophic results being used to arouse public fear of global warming: the disappearance of island nations, the extinction of species of animals, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people around the world due to causes such as the spread of disease in epidemic proportion, greater numbers and severity of hurricanes, droughts and heat waves, flooding and, on and on and on.
Such apocalyptic consequences on our horizon (at least according to the climate change acolytes) beg a single question: If today these claims are merely based on theories and not on factual, provable reality, why aren't governments around the world , regardless of their political system, working in concert to prove or disprove these theories? But they are apparently not doing that outside the framework of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yet it is the IPCC which has used data based on questionable science to support the agenda of the climate alarmists. Considering the potential for trillions of dollars to be redistributed to "combat" global warming, even the alarmists should be striving for more and more proof of their assertions, yet we are told that the science is settled.
It's almost as if they don't even want to prove that they are right. They prefer "faith-based" solutions to a problem that must be accepted on faith alone.
So the fundamental tenet of climate change (née "global warming"), that it is brought on solely by man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, is treated by Liberal-Progressive-Democrats such as Henry Waxman as an article of faith. It is beyond debate.
Is there some level of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature? According to the data that so-called climate scientists have revealed (Hallelujah! A revelation!), there seems to be some merit to the assertion that these two variables are related. Correlation is not, however, proof of causality. It would be just as easy to claim that global temperature changes are the cause of increases or decreases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. L-P-Ds, however, are firm in their assertion that the causal link between carbon dioxide and global temperature changes is a proven fact. Questioning this assertion is treated as heresy.
Apparently the environmental extremists on the left treat their belief system as a religion. They believe in something that has not been proven and might not even be capable of proof. It's all about something that they believe. I think that's the definition of a religion, isn't it? And if environmental radicalism actually is a religion, I have no problem with it. They can believe anything that they want. I don't object to them working to convert people to the First Church of Gaia, or to them taking up collections during their services. All that is just fine, since, if the global warming thing actually is a religion (defined as something that is based on faith alone), it is protected by the First Amendment.
However, I do think that no matter how devout Congressman Waxman might be, the First Amendment protects me from having his beliefs rammed down my throat. Forcing me to pay taxes of any kind to satisfy his religious obligations flies directly and obviously in the face of the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also shows how closely aligned (at least in thought processes) radical environmentalists are to radical Islamists.
Sadly, for the rest of us, they are really, really religious in the sense that, like radical Islamists, they are utterly intolerant of any other religion. When one looks at radical Islam, the parallels are obvious. There is absolutely no tolerance for any other sect. They are willing to coerce anyone and everyone to achieve their goals. They will tax non-conforming people to fund their utopian ideas. The will effectively enslave people solely for the fulfillment of their dreams.
In some other ways, L-P-Ds also seem similar to the Puritans, who lived in constant fear that somewhere, someone might be having a good time. L-P-Ds live in constant fear that somewhere, someone might actually be thinking for themselves.
In fact, L-P-Ds might seem to be the 21st century reincarnation of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, who was ironically named Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland back in 1653-1658, while perpetrating the most oppressive dictatorship the British people had ever known. Interestingly, like many leaders of the current crop of L-P-Ds, Cromwell was trained as a lawyer.
Both religion and L-P-Ds share the idea that either God, or in the case of L-P-D intellectuals (such as Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky or Bill Ayers), government will guarantee heaven if, and only if, you behave a certain way. The difference between them is that religions promise heaven after you're dead, while L-P-Ds promise a heaven-on-earth in the (almost) immediate future.
Another big difference is that ministers, priests, rabbis and imams will tell you that failure to live up to these impossible standards the result will be that after you die, you will burn in hell for all eternity. L-P-Ds just plan to tax you to the point that you only feel like you must be in hell even before you die.
Prayer alone might help the rest of us deal with this new L-P-D religion, but voting in November almost assuredly will.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller for manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran and an independent voter. Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com
Yet people like Waxman rattle on about climate change (or whatever politically expedient phrase is currently in use) with the fanatical faith of a true zealot. Even if Mr. Waxman does represent that center of intellectual rigor that is Hollywood, it would be a lot more seemly if a member of Congress did not rely on "Trust me!" as a justification for attempting to control a vast swath of the American economy.
The climate change issue is championed by Liberal Progressive Democrats (L-P-Ds) such as Waxman, Al Gore and even our "smartest-guy-in-the-room" President. The support of these worthies is invariably accompanied by the underlying assumption that changes in the globe's climate are primarily caused by increases in man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. Consider the claims of potentially catastrophic results being used to arouse public fear of global warming: the disappearance of island nations, the extinction of species of animals, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people around the world due to causes such as the spread of disease in epidemic proportion, greater numbers and severity of hurricanes, droughts and heat waves, flooding and, on and on and on.
Such apocalyptic consequences on our horizon (at least according to the climate change acolytes) beg a single question: If today these claims are merely based on theories and not on factual, provable reality, why aren't governments around the world , regardless of their political system, working in concert to prove or disprove these theories? But they are apparently not doing that outside the framework of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yet it is the IPCC which has used data based on questionable science to support the agenda of the climate alarmists. Considering the potential for trillions of dollars to be redistributed to "combat" global warming, even the alarmists should be striving for more and more proof of their assertions, yet we are told that the science is settled.
It's almost as if they don't even want to prove that they are right. They prefer "faith-based" solutions to a problem that must be accepted on faith alone.
So the fundamental tenet of climate change (née "global warming"), that it is brought on solely by man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, is treated by Liberal-Progressive-Democrats such as Henry Waxman as an article of faith. It is beyond debate.
Is there some level of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature? According to the data that so-called climate scientists have revealed (Hallelujah! A revelation!), there seems to be some merit to the assertion that these two variables are related. Correlation is not, however, proof of causality. It would be just as easy to claim that global temperature changes are the cause of increases or decreases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. L-P-Ds, however, are firm in their assertion that the causal link between carbon dioxide and global temperature changes is a proven fact. Questioning this assertion is treated as heresy.
Apparently the environmental extremists on the left treat their belief system as a religion. They believe in something that has not been proven and might not even be capable of proof. It's all about something that they believe. I think that's the definition of a religion, isn't it? And if environmental radicalism actually is a religion, I have no problem with it. They can believe anything that they want. I don't object to them working to convert people to the First Church of Gaia, or to them taking up collections during their services. All that is just fine, since, if the global warming thing actually is a religion (defined as something that is based on faith alone), it is protected by the First Amendment.
However, I do think that no matter how devout Congressman Waxman might be, the First Amendment protects me from having his beliefs rammed down my throat. Forcing me to pay taxes of any kind to satisfy his religious obligations flies directly and obviously in the face of the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also shows how closely aligned (at least in thought processes) radical environmentalists are to radical Islamists.
Sadly, for the rest of us, they are really, really religious in the sense that, like radical Islamists, they are utterly intolerant of any other religion. When one looks at radical Islam, the parallels are obvious. There is absolutely no tolerance for any other sect. They are willing to coerce anyone and everyone to achieve their goals. They will tax non-conforming people to fund their utopian ideas. The will effectively enslave people solely for the fulfillment of their dreams.
In some other ways, L-P-Ds also seem similar to the Puritans, who lived in constant fear that somewhere, someone might be having a good time. L-P-Ds live in constant fear that somewhere, someone might actually be thinking for themselves.
In fact, L-P-Ds might seem to be the 21st century reincarnation of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, who was ironically named Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland back in 1653-1658, while perpetrating the most oppressive dictatorship the British people had ever known. Interestingly, like many leaders of the current crop of L-P-Ds, Cromwell was trained as a lawyer.
Both religion and L-P-Ds share the idea that either God, or in the case of L-P-D intellectuals (such as Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky or Bill Ayers), government will guarantee heaven if, and only if, you behave a certain way. The difference between them is that religions promise heaven after you're dead, while L-P-Ds promise a heaven-on-earth in the (almost) immediate future.
Another big difference is that ministers, priests, rabbis and imams will tell you that failure to live up to these impossible standards the result will be that after you die, you will burn in hell for all eternity. L-P-Ds just plan to tax you to the point that you only feel like you must be in hell even before you die.
Prayer alone might help the rest of us deal with this new L-P-D religion, but voting in November almost assuredly will.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller for manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran and an independent voter. Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment