The Kingdom Divided, Part 7

2007-3-19 06:24:00

The Question:

Which side of the global warming issue exhibits the qualities of light and dark? The first aspect to look at is ignorance.

So which side of the issue is the most informed or ill informed? Here is my observation from the people I have talked to and the hundreds of debates I have heard on radio, TV and read in the newspapers.

Those who support the orthodox view seem to know an astonishing small amount about the subject. Their argument basically goes as follows.

  1. The issue has been settled - there is a consensus.
  2. The UN and almost every scientist in the world agrees with Al Gore. All but a few rebels and extreme right wingers agree.

Then they will cite evidence that the earth is getting warmer which is not even part of the argument. Most on both sides of the issue believe this. The issue is not that the earth is getting warmer, but are man made emissions causing most, if not all of it?

In almost every case this is all the information they have. Because some authority told them scientists agree and scientists are probably smarter than they are they acquiesce their power to judge and discern.

On the other hand, I find that those who question the standard theory are quite well informed and know at least a few details on which to base an argument. They take their stand not because some authority tells them to but because of some investigation on their part. I find a lot of them to be like Larry in his last post. He knew about previous warm cycles. He knew that warming provided many benefits. He also knew that CO2 is not a pollutant but is like a fertilizer or food for plant life. Tell this to the Gore disciples and often their jaw will drop in disbelief.

Next is anger. It's difficult to judge another person's anger. I know some judge me to be angry at times when I am not angry at all. The problem I have when global warming comes up with an orthodox believer is that he ends the discussion the instant he sees I am informed about the subject. He gives himself no time to get angry before he makes an exit.

I have read and heard some angry tones from them though when they attack what they call global warming deniers. Some want them rounded up and tried in Nuremberg type trials.

Intolerance:   The evidence is overwhelming that the orthodox believers are much more intolerant. Many scientists who have worked in global warming research have been threatened with loss of jobs, careers, and funding if their research did not support the standard belief. Some scientists are receiving death threats for speaking out.

On the other hand, the rebels seem to be quite tolerant and happy to have the data from both sides come out so it can be examined in the light of day.

Who relies heavier on logic and reason thus having less distortion?

My comments above make the answer obvious here.

Selfishness:   Many on both sides of the issue just want to live life on earth in the most productive and prosperous way possible. This is normal selfishness. What goes beyond this are the billions of dollars funneled toward global warming projects and research. Since the truth behind this subject is so easy to discover this means that many have selfishly sold themselves out to a lie to make money.

Freedom:   The orthodox believer wants to suppress the free flow of alternative information on the subject. Many, including Gore himself, have attempted to get the press to not give space to opposing views.

If draconian carbon reductions were mandated it would mean less freedom for all the peoples of the earth, especially developing countries. The sad part is this would be a useless reduction of freedom.

I think the readers should get the point here. The orthodox believers stand on the dark side on every point that I mentioned earlier.

I'll just comment on one more:

Do they give truth greater weight than authority?

The orthodox believer relies close to 100 percent on the authority of some nameless scientists he has heard mentioned. He does not check out the science for himself.

On the other hand, the rebels do check out the science, read books and study the issue to see what makes sense.

The reason the believer does not do his research is because many of them just believe that the intelligence of scientists are head and shoulders above themselves. If all the scientists but a few crackpots agree then who is he to question?

The truth is this. The average person can look at the data and use his reason just as a scientist does. No one should let someone else do all their thinking for them.

The global warming issue is a great one to see who follows beastly authority without question and who does not.

Again if you have not seen it yet please go to the film on the subject. I was surprised how good it was. You can find it at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Now let us approach a related issue, which we could call the conservation of resources, which is closely related to the Law of Economy.

There are two basic camps here:

  1. Those who teach as well as practice conservation. They use the resources they need but try to avoid waste and excess.
  2. Those who make no effort to conserve resources. These people will often make fun of those who drive a Prius or use the new energy conserving light bulbs. This category would also include the environmental hypocrites who want others to conserve, but not themselves.

Which of these two better represent the light and why?

Mediocrity always attacks excellence.
Guest on the Oprah show