Posted on 03/14/2015 6:05:07 AM PDT by HomerBohn
Donning the robes of High Priest of Science, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a rousing sermon on March 12 that presumed to speak for both Science and Religion on the supposed existential threat of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming, AGW. Warning that we face “utter catastrophe” and the end of “life as we know it on Earth” if we “do nothing” to stop global warming, Kerry said failing to act “is beyond reckless. It is just plain immoral.”
Secretary Kerry delivered his AGW jeremiad before the Atlantic Council, as part of the globalist organization’s “The Road to Paris” Climate Series, which is aimed at stirring support for the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, France.
However, before putting on his preacher’s robe to condemn the unbelievers, Rev. Kerry first got into his scientist’s robe to establish with dogmatic certainty the inerrancy of the AGW gospel.
“When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground,” Kerry intoned with Newtonian gravitas. “We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that.”
Everyone must have known that a great leap of Al Gorian logic was about to be made. “So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change,” Kerry continued, “by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘Well, I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth?’ And yet, there are those who do so.”
Indeed there are such people, Mr. Reverend Secretary. People such as Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who, during the previous week, had published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal challenging the ongoing climate change hysteria that truly threatens our liberty, our energy availability, our prosperity, and our security. Unlike Secretary Kerry, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Rajendra Pachauri, Dr. Lindzen is a real scientist of world class renown. In his recent Journal piece, he wrote:
World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.
Currently elevated levels of carbon dioxide have contributed to increases in agricultural productivity. Indeed, climatologists before the recent global warming hysteria referred to warm periods as “climate optima.” Yet world leaders are embarking on costly policies that have no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all, and restricting access to energy to the world’s poorest populations that still lack access to electricity’s immense benefits.
“Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy,” notes Dr. Lindzen. “So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.”
Last year a U.S. Senate committee study entitled “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA,” showed that the radical Heinz Family Foundation, largely controlled by John Kerry’s wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, is one of the major funders of the AGW alarmist movement.
Phony 97 Percent “Consensus” — Again
In his Atlantic Council address, Kerry said that “no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” “It is rare, rare, rare — I can tell you after 28 years-plus in the Senate — to get a super majority of studies to agree on anything,” he continued. “But 97 percent, over 20-plus years — that’s a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore.”
People of good conscience would have a right to ignore that alleged “statement of fact,” Mr. Secretary, even if it were true. That’s an indispensible right guaranteed here in America by the First Amendment of the Constitution you've sworn to uphold. In fact, people of good conscience have both a right and a duty to expose and oppose the false AGW claims that are being used to enact laws and policies that strip us of our rights to engage in all those activities necessary to being a free and independent people. They have a right and duty to challenge your use of the discredited, fabricated consensus nonsense of John Cook and Naomi Oreskes, which we have repeatedly exposed (see, for instance, here, here, here, and here.
It is the continued, obstinate use of the phony consensus meme by you and your AGW allies, Secretary Kerry, to intimidate and vilify all opposition, along with your attempts to use the fear generated by AGW alarmism to establish a tyrannical global climate regime that is truly immoral.
Nevermind ISIS and other terrorist organizations trying to kill us.
Climate change is much worse.
This whole bunch is out of touch with reality of what is crucial. They are in touch with the low information voters maybe because they are the same.
Horseface will need to sacrifice some people to the Earth where the core is ‘millions of degrees’ as prophet Algore has preached.
“Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that.”
It depends on the pressure - there, I just disputed that.
I love it when people who don’t know shiite about science pontificate on science. Kerry apparently took physical chemistry at the Al Gore College of Inconvenient Pseudo-Truths.
You point is quite right.
Some 50+ years ago, British analytical philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe chastized atheist ethicists who think there really is no right or wrong still use terms like "should" or "ought" or "moral law" as if one could be obliged to commit sodomy, or torture, or rape, or murder, if there were a good enough reason. It’s as if God Almighty had said, "Thou shalt not commit moral abominations — unless thou art really, really, REALLY tempted."
If one does not believe in a divine Moral Lawgiver, one should be honest and stop talking about big words, big authority-words like "should" and "ought" and "moral law". It’s dishonest. Otherwise, you are like a person who uses a big authority-word like "verdict" even though he has abolished judges and juries; or a person who claims to be an expert on ribs and joints, when he denies the existence of bones.
When in need of moral guidance on an issue, who better to turn to than a treasonous gigolo that preys on widowed billionaire heiresses?
Global Warming is just your Deal with Iran ,nothing but a Pile Of Obama Droppings
So, when is this French-looking blowhard and his crazy wife going to give up several of their mansions and private jets? Don’t they care about the “environment?”
Everyone must have known that a great leap of Al Gorian logic was about to be made. “So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change,” Kerry continued, “by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘Well, I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth?’ And yet, there are those who do so.”
Stremba - how do you 'feel' about Kerry's logic? Just curious...
It’s so easy to see right through Democrats like Kerry and Gore. Their big-money backers are invested to the billions, perhaps trillions, in “global warming” as both a people-controller and a vehicle for selling their products and services. If the public doesn’t buy “global warming,” from bought-and-paid-for hucksters like Kerry and Gore, there goes all those big-money investments, and the hucksters’ gravy train stops a’rollin’.
Spanish inquisition.
What about the immorality of promoting the climate change lie?
Thanks - I was just about to post that a quick glance at the water phase diagram would instantly prove him wrong. What an idiot!
There really are three questions involved in the whole climate change issue that are routinely confused and conflated with each other:
1. Is the earth warming? That question is inherently and without question a scientific one. We should NOT doubt the scientists on this one (unless, of course, we can provide data to the contrary). If scientists say that “the science is settled” and only mean that the earth is in fact warming, I have no problem with that. The problem comes from the fact that this issue has been highly politicized and scientists are certainly not immune from overstepping the evidence based on their political stances.
2. If the earth is warming, what is causing it? That question, while speculative, is also within the purview of science. An honest scientist would make a hypothesis (such as increased greenhouse gas emission) and work out the consequences of that hypothesis. To do so, climate models have been developed. If these models correctly predict future climactic behavior, then support is lent to the original hypothesis. If not, then the models must be modified to account for additional variables. If that fails, then the original hypothesis falls under question. Right now, the models have been found to be inaccurate to some degree. Scientists are in the process of further study of factors that may be affecting the climate and are attempting to modify models accordingly. The jury is still out on the man-made global warming hypothesis. I would therefore reject Kerry’s logic regarding this second question.
3. If global warming is occurring, and we know why it’s happening, what should we do about it? That question is most certainly NOT within the purview of science. We can rely upon scientific data and models to define the problem, but determining action requires the type of value judgements and cost/benefit analyses that take this right out of the realm of science. This question is purely a political question. Obviously, Kerry’s logic would not apply at all to this issue.
Even the answer to question 1 is not really settled; new data could be produced that calls into question the reality of the warming. However, until that happens, we should really not question it, but rather work on issues 2 and 3 above.
The main reason I am a Conservatives is that Conservatism is really about facing the world as it really is and not trying to deny reality to fit a political agenda. Why do we not apply that in this case? If the scientific evidence indicates that the world is warming, we should not deny that, unless of course new evidence is found to contradict that assertion. That does not mean, however, that we should just surrender to the lefties. We should work to win the political battles. We should work to help people understand that the earth is a complex system and that factors other than human greenhouse gas emissions play a significant role in the climate. We should also work to put our solutions into play rather than allowing the lefties’ “just shut all carbon emissions down” type “solutions” to be unchallenged. We don’t get to do either of these if we deny the basic reality of increasing global temperatures.
Of course, the shorter answer is that Kerry should be worrying more about dealing with Iran and ISIS and less about scientific matters anyway. He IS the Secretary of State after all and his job should be dealing with foreign threats to America, not with climate change.
It has nothing to do with intensity of 'feelings' about the issue..
AND nothing to do with people wearing lab coats and glasses.
The history of science is filled with stories of one man being right ... standing alone with an experiment that can be replicated. Or a model that works...
None of the models warmies put out have stood the test of time. And I'm not talking about 50 years... none of the models have proven right over ANY time period. Period. They can't even replicate their data... or share it with others so it can be looked at by many sets of eyes.
Warmies hand out 'conclusions' and models that don't work and expect us to 'believe in them'...
It's just stupid.
My personal ‘feeling’ is that summers are getting warmer and winters are getting colder.
Unless I can back up my ‘feelings’ they’re as worthless as the most hysterical warmist..
John Kerry - please give us a cost analysis of your proposed “climate change mitigation” policies.
Include opportunity cost and lifestyle cost to the average American.
Then get back with us about “morality”.
I thought my reply was pretty clear. Where did I mention “feelings” in it? If the data show that the earth is getting warmer, what good does it do to deny this? We are Conservatives; we are supposed to deal with reality. Data is reality. Now, models are based on hypotheses about WHY the earth is warming; those are arguable. However, if you truly want to argue it, you must develop your own hypothesis about why the earth is getting warmer. You must work through the consequences of that hypothesis and make predictions about future climactic behavior based on it. If those predictions come true, well you have just developed a better model and it will be taken seriously. If not, back to the drawing board. That’s how science works. Of course, scientists are not immune to political influence; that’s why the models that are out there are the ones being worked upon. That’s why it’s incumbent upon Conservatives to not reject the premise, but rather work on alternative models of climate behavior.
I agree with Kerry’s logic insofar as to say that we should not deny the observations. It is hard to do climate science from a starting point of denying the observations, though. That’s why we should not do so. Why should recognizing that the world is warming, trying to figure out why, and trying to figure out what (if anything) to do about it be considered a liberal thing to do?
I just think bad science is much like bad speech. The remedy is not to shut it down, but to counter it with good science (or speech). It’s tough to do good science if your starting point is denial of the data.
Science has a pretty darn good track record of both increasing our basic understanding of the universe and of improving our standard of living by fostering technological advances. Why would you want to just reject science out of hand when you don’t like the results? That’s what the Soviets did, and it set their scientific programs back immeasurably. My thought is just to recognize the bad science (and the whole climate science community HAS become politicized so there is a rather large potential for bad science in it) and replace it with better science. We conservatives should play a role in that, but to do so we cannot deny basic observational data because we think it doesn’t fit our ideological position.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/24/the-crucifixion-of-dr-willie-soon/
“Ecology should be considered political major - not a science major.
NO warmists models have have predicted ANYTHING correctly. None. That’s a red flag.... don’t you see that?
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.