Truly we have lost control of rational civil society. It appears the supposedly rational people are unable to recognize and articulate rational thought. And worse, this is not something that debate can change as rational debate cannot change insanity.
To debate a irrational person only allows onlookers to be confused as to who is irrational.
The progressive socialist liberal democrat is not like other human beings that live and work in reality, but exist only in a framework of a specific ideology where a given narrative is presented to them and they dutifully carry out those directives to the best of their abilities to articulate that given narrative, no matter how illogical or intellectually absurd it may be. It seem it isn't the job of the progressive liberal democrat to question whether or not a given subject is either rational or logical but only do what they are told to say and do.
As these member of United States congress have displayed for to see, it becomes clear that the progressive cannot distinguish between what is real and what is a fantasy, what is rational and what is irrational. Science that conflicts with the reality of what is proven intellectual fact, they, the progressive liberal democrats see and demonize as political heresy.
It becomes clear as well that the progressive liberal is not like the rest of humanity, but a separate subset of humans where the most basic characteristics that distinguishes rational individuals from those that cannot be rational or logical are clearly identified.
And to explain this by using logic seems nearly impossible as their behavior is absent of common sense or logic, the difference has to in the progressive's DNA. They are genetically different.
The Left’s Climate Change Hysteria
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris /
In the latest bout of political theater, 19 congressional Democrats took the stage of the Senate floor Tuesday to attack free-market organizations for allegedly spinning a “web of denial” on global warming. Casting the right to free speech aside, the senators are spinning a web of climate hysteria and economic illiteracy.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said, “We have to be open to different points of view, but when the science is settled and people who know better are fighting against it, we should know better.”
In other words, as far as liberals are concerned, it’s now a self-evident truth that climate change is urgent, catastrophic, and man-made, and the only way to stop it involves massive government intervention.
It’s not surprising liberals view the issue as urgent, given they believe such absurdities as that man-made global warming is irreversibly cooking our planet, melting the ice caps , creating climate refugees in the tens of millions, and will ultimately result in Manhattan being underwater. Suddenly, it makes (a little) sense why they want us to de-develop to the Stone Age by keeping the world’s natural resources in the ground to stop climate change.
Let’s move back to the initial belief that climate change is real. The fact of the matter is that no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists on the magnitude of future warming, man’s impact on the climate, or on the urgency to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, looking at the data from the federal government’s own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides plenty of reason to slow down on alarmism.
There are a number of climate phenomena that activists warn are signs of oncoming, catastrophic global warming. Among these alleged markers of environmental doom are: increasing hurricanes, widespread floods and droughts, and a sea level rise that will harm coastal communities.
Conventional fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas primarily power the American and global economy. These natural resources meet 80 percent of the world’s energy needs because they are affordable and reliable. They also significantly improved the quality of life and health for billions of people all over the world. Regulating conventional fuels out of existence will raise energy prices that hit families again and again because almost everything we buy requires energy to make.
Keeping fuel in the ground keeps the world’s poorest citizens trapped in poverty. It will deprive the 17 percent of the world’s population who don’t have access to electricity and 35 percent who don’t have clean cooking facilities from achieving a better standard of living.
The web of denial charade might provide enough hot air to make some subsidized windmills spin, but it carries a concerning message that threatens scientific debate and dismisses economic realities.
To debate a irrational person only allows onlookers to be confused as to who is irrational.
The progressive socialist liberal democrat is not like other human beings that live and work in reality, but exist only in a framework of a specific ideology where a given narrative is presented to them and they dutifully carry out those directives to the best of their abilities to articulate that given narrative, no matter how illogical or intellectually absurd it may be. It seem it isn't the job of the progressive liberal democrat to question whether or not a given subject is either rational or logical but only do what they are told to say and do.
As these member of United States congress have displayed for to see, it becomes clear that the progressive cannot distinguish between what is real and what is a fantasy, what is rational and what is irrational. Science that conflicts with the reality of what is proven intellectual fact, they, the progressive liberal democrats see and demonize as political heresy.
It becomes clear as well that the progressive liberal is not like the rest of humanity, but a separate subset of humans where the most basic characteristics that distinguishes rational individuals from those that cannot be rational or logical are clearly identified.
And to explain this by using logic seems nearly impossible as their behavior is absent of common sense or logic, the difference has to in the progressive's DNA. They are genetically different.
The Left’s Climate Change Hysteria
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris /
In the latest bout of political theater, 19 congressional Democrats took the stage of the Senate floor Tuesday to attack free-market organizations for allegedly spinning a “web of denial” on global warming. Casting the right to free speech aside, the senators are spinning a web of climate hysteria and economic illiteracy.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said, “We have to be open to different points of view, but when the science is settled and people who know better are fighting against it, we should know better.”
In other words, as far as liberals are concerned, it’s now a self-evident truth that climate change is urgent, catastrophic, and man-made, and the only way to stop it involves massive government intervention.
It’s not surprising liberals view the issue as urgent, given they believe such absurdities as that man-made global warming is irreversibly cooking our planet, melting the ice caps , creating climate refugees in the tens of millions, and will ultimately result in Manhattan being underwater. Suddenly, it makes (a little) sense why they want us to de-develop to the Stone Age by keeping the world’s natural resources in the ground to stop climate change.
Let’s move back to the initial belief that climate change is real. The fact of the matter is that no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists on the magnitude of future warming, man’s impact on the climate, or on the urgency to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, looking at the data from the federal government’s own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides plenty of reason to slow down on alarmism.
There are a number of climate phenomena that activists warn are signs of oncoming, catastrophic global warming. Among these alleged markers of environmental doom are: increasing hurricanes, widespread floods and droughts, and a sea level rise that will harm coastal communities.
- Hurricanes Are Not Becoming More Frequent. The IPCC notes in its most recent scientific assessment that there are “no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.” Further, “confidence in large-scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones [such as ‘Superstorm’ Sandy] since 1900 is low.”
- Floods and Droughts. The IPCC noted that it overstated previous conclusions about increasing trends and that “the compelling arguments both for and against a significant increase in the land area experiencing drought has hampered global assessment.” The IPCC found evidence for increases, decreases, and no trend at all in flood activity or severity. So whatever your theory on climate change and floods, the IPCC has studies to back you up—which suggests that there’s a lot of uncertainty on this topic.
- Sea Level Rise. Though every year seems to bring on a prediction of imminent sea level rise direr than the last, the observed reality does not reflect this. Corresponding to the recovery from the Little Ice Age, sea level has risen about eight inches in the past 130 years. During this period, the rate of this rise has varied on multidecadal time scales, making identifying exact reasons behind upswings, such as what has been observed over the past few decades, difficult. But whatever the cause, the current rate of sea level rise (about 12-13 inches per century) lies far beneath alarmist projections of several feet or more by the year 2100.
Conventional fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas primarily power the American and global economy. These natural resources meet 80 percent of the world’s energy needs because they are affordable and reliable. They also significantly improved the quality of life and health for billions of people all over the world. Regulating conventional fuels out of existence will raise energy prices that hit families again and again because almost everything we buy requires energy to make.
Keeping fuel in the ground keeps the world’s poorest citizens trapped in poverty. It will deprive the 17 percent of the world’s population who don’t have access to electricity and 35 percent who don’t have clean cooking facilities from achieving a better standard of living.
The web of denial charade might provide enough hot air to make some subsidized windmills spin, but it carries a concerning message that threatens scientific debate and dismisses economic realities.
No comments:
Post a Comment