Freedom, not climate, is at risk

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond.

The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced. The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:

- Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants

- Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority

- Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour

- Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction

- Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The words of the world are not wise in stewardship for the earth.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0

It’s a distraction tactic. “Consensus” is not Science as Science is not a democracy and has no democratic process to finding facts.

“9 out of 10 scientists agree that water is no longer wet. Therefore, we will reissue school books that will cost the tax payer billions and make us super rich because of our scientific consensus.”

Drought occurs from neglect of irrigation and not from the oil burning combustible engine. Nature is in chaos—not in balance. What? Is there a secret gathering of the senate of fury creatures and the house of feather & reptile to figure out their rules and regulations:

Senate of Fury Creatures Chairman: “We call this meeting to order. 1st item on the agenda, there are too many wildebeests because the lions aren’t eating enough. Lions, what’s your excuse?”

Representative of the Pride: “Uh...it’s because the wildebeests aren’t using condoms! They’re reproducing too much and that doesn’t leave us time for more sex and procreation. I mean, were trying. I, myself, am eating up to 2 wildebeests a day. Do you know what that’s like? I can’t even get a bowl of cereal or cup of strong coffee to help pass the meal. I’ve hemorrhoids the size of hippos down there!”

Why would Czechs “get it” when they see past this “environmental” smoke screen. I knew a Czech who was pulled out of his school, dressed in a soldier’s uniform and told to kill Russians. He was the only survivor in his unit.

Secularists are trying to use this false alarmism to cover their criminal actions of swindling the public trust to steal our money. What influences this theft is a demonic who serves a darker master. If Russians are ecstatic to not suffer cold winters like they have then doesn’t it stand to “global warming” logic that cooling the earth now would be a bad thing? Why would a gigantic population with huge real estate want a reversal in the weather trend?

“By all means, bring on the global warming, let me put on my swim trunks and some tanning lotion, and pour myself a mixed tropical fruit drink and put a little pink umbrella in it!”

The devil conspires division amongst the “global warming BAD!” vs. “global warming GOOD!” crowd along the same classic lines of East vs. West and all the blood split over nothing.

Matthew
Chapter 16

1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.

2 He said to them in reply, “(In the evening you say, ‘Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red’;
3
and, in the morning, ‘Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.)
4
An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Then he left them and went away.
5
In coming to the other side of the sea, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread.
6
Jesus said to them, “Look out, and beware of the leaven 5 of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7
They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.”
8
When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?
9
Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up?
10
Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?
11
How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12
Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Luke 12:
54
He also said to the crowds, “When you see (a) cloud rising in the west you say immediately that it is going to rain—and so it does;
55
and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot—and so it is.
56
You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?
57
“Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
58
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.
59
I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.