I have seen, in a few on-line forums variations on a theme – “how do you, as a gun owner, justify owning an AR-15?” The question is posed in slightly different forms but all basically written from the view that owning a gun is something that is not a natural thing, or is somehow a dangerous thing or a threatening one.
It is the question which is wrong. It is based upon a false premise.
A person owns himself or herself. The right to your own life is the building block of a free society. The right to the rewards of your own thoughts and work is a logical extension of the right of personal ownership and follows from it. This is what turns a country from slavery to a recognition of the personal rights of every citizen.
This is a right that the US Constitution embodies. It is NOT a right that a government gives – it is a right that belongs to the basic building block of the society that creates the laws that we live by.
My right to own my life gives me the responsibility to take care of it and to protect it. I am the one who gets to decide which means I employ to do that. However my right does not extend to forcing another person to do what I wish, merely to make me feel secure. Once we move into the realm of ME deciding what YOU must do in order to give me something, moves us back to the realm of slavery. We can agree between us on a code to enable us to live in harmony but the code must enshrine the principle that the rights of one cannot infringe the rights of the other.
In a society that recognizes individual rights the right to bear arms is a logical right. It does not require any other person to “give” me that right. I can choose to bear arms or I can decide not to. What I cannot do is decide YOUR choice in the matter. And you cannot decide mine.
The decision to be responsible for my survival is the moral stance to take. Trying to force me to comply with your wishes and feelings against my own rights is the immoral stance to take.
Israel announced that production from its “Leviathan” oil and gas field has started. The platform started well production to mark the end of 2019.
The Leviathan field is a large gas repository with reserves estimated as 40 years of Israel’s domestic needs. It is not the only field in production, the Tamar field adjacent to Leviathan had been brought online in 2011.
Up until the discovery and development of these two huge fields Israel had always been looked upon as and energy dependent Nation within a region of energy production plenty – and, ironically of course, – the Arab nations were the ones with the oil. So this does represent a major rebalancing of the scales of power within the region.
I must admit that my own naive hope here is that it can help lead to mutually beneficial partnerships between Israel and her neighbors. I find it incredible that the Palestinians, for example, are not working full time on developing much closer business relationships with Israel . After all if the Palestinian territories were to become much more affluent surely that would help the cause of peace? And, with affluence and peace comes a better life for all the residents of the area, Israeli and Palestinian.
If we look at the maps showing where the fields are and where the pipelines are it becomes obvious, I think that countries like Lebanon and Jordan could also benefit immensely from these developments and maybe the western part of Syria.
If Lebanon and the Palestinian territories can become much more self sufficient or even affluent in themselves it would go a long way to drawing down the influence of Iran or Saudi Arabia.
President Trump approved the targeting of the Iranian General in charge of the “Quds Force” . Just so we are clear about this “force”. It is a unit within the “Revolutionary Guard Corps” of the Iranian governing hierarchy.
“Responsible for extraterritorial operations, the Quds Force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.”
The “Quds Force” was designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” in April of 2019. Qassim Suleiman, the targeted individual, was in Baghdad when he was attacked, he was the leader of a terrorist organization, in a country that did not invite him and at the scene of terrorist activity being carried out by his organization. Let’s keep that ALL in mind. He was a legitimate target of war.
President Trump’s decision was right, the action was carried out flawlessly and a disgusting Terrorist Organization was struck a decisive blow.
So why the hysteria by the left – from Kaepernick to the Squid – oops squad – and the rest of the sycophantic twats of the left? They criticized the President for taking firm and decisive action against an enemy of the USA who has a proven track record of organizing strikes against our military.
The Washington post referred to the Terrorist in chief as “ (Iran’s) most revered military leader”. I draw attention to that little gem because, apparently, the Washington Post believes that the head of a terrorist network in a country ruled by secret police and revolutionary guards and which imprisons dissidents and executes gays is somehow “revered”. The WAPO of course does not actually state how it arrives at the conclusion that this thug is “revered” though I am sure there are some Iranian fanatics who love the guy.
And a quick review of the World’s press shows a general undertone of “fear” from those governments who fear “escalation” by President Trump – but who do not, it would seem, fear escalation by Iran which has in recent years exported its revolutionary tactics and personnel to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq as three primary examples. But fight back? Exert force against people bent on creating havoc? OMG! How awful.
The Obama administration paid off Iran with pallets of cash. Some of that cash was used to bankroll Quds and the terrorist organizations it supports ( Like Hamas and Hizbollah) and some of it used to bankroll Iran’s atomic research. Such escalation seemed to escape the Washington Post and other media “entities” and passed by without critical comment.
There can be no negotiating with terrorists who have already announced that the reason for their existence is the eradication of their enemies.
Only idiots and poltroons think that one should try to pacify a person or entity that has said that its ‘raison d’etre’ is your destruction. They are the ones who have set the rules of this conflict and they must be dealt with before they can achieve their aim.
Last night (Thursday Dec 12 2019) was a great night for Brexit supporters in the UK.
The Conservative Party, which had run pretty much on “Get Brexit done for god’s sake” took 364 of the seats in Parliament. 650 is the total count of seats. That gives the Conservatives an absolute majority of 78 in Parliament.
What does that mean for Brexit? Whatever Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister decides. Each Parliament lasts 5 years unless an extraordinary General Election is called. So Mr Johnson has a large enough majority to guarantee 5 years of power running the UK. How will it turn out? Well I am sure that Brexit will happen – and happen on much more favorable terms for the UK than the anti-Brexit partisans were promoting. Will it happen fast? Good question – we will wait and see.
But what else? Well Boris campaigned on and spoken about a few main areas – beefing up the NHS especially in numbers of nurses and Doctors, though I have not seen how he proposes to actually do it My own personal impression is that this may be more problematical than it appears after all where are all these English speaking and qualified people going to come from? He also promised IIRC, 40 new Hospitals – that is probably a more easily managed promise but – the hospitals have to be manned with qualified people – so?
What will happen with Northern Ireland? Well I am semi-confident that Boris can thread the needle – so we’ll see what happens. I am hoping that a sensible solution will be arrived it. Though, given the history that may be a hope too far.
For Scotland? Well Boris has said on the record that there will be no 2nd Vote on Scottish independence. I support Boris in this – for a very simple reason – this was voted on in 2014 and the Scottish people rejected Independence by 2,001,926 votes to 1,627,989 . Now, 5 years later (and actually for the past 3 years), the Scottish Nationalist Party has been pushing for another referendum presumably because the first referendum did not give them what they wanted.
The same argument that has been advanced by those who oppose the vote on Brexit. The British People voted to leave the EU. What should have happened next was that Parliament should have responded to that vote by getting Great Britain out of the EU forthwith. There was NOTHING to argue about. And THAT delay and unspeakable arrogance from those who sought to kill Brexit has directly led to the stunning victory last night.
The SNP bring up the fact that they have increased their seats in Parliament – by a large amount, They are certainly in a position to negotiate . But they will have to lose the “we want, we demand” because the majority is with the Conservatives and then do not need the approval of the SNP.
Once again I am awestruck by the simple ability of the left wing group-hive to volubly express their contempt and hatred for their fellow citizens . During the whole run up to this election it has been one brain dead virtue signaling lefty celebrity after another attempting to persuade the UK voters to not vote conservatives by accusing the voters of being idiots. Seems like the SNP are going the same way. It will not end well.
There have been two major referenda in the UK in this decade – Scottish Independence and Brexit. There were hard fought campaigns on both occasions and the votes were counted. Scottish Independence was rejected, Brexit was approved.
And still, the left does not wish to support Democracy. Neither do the “Liberal -Democrats” who, despite their name, seem dedicated to NOT doing what the British People voted for – how is that “Liberal” how is it “Democrat”? Asking for a friend…
I am very happy with the result, I am happy that the electorate has emphatically reinforced their Referendum vote for Brexit. I hope that Boris will use the levers of power that have been given to him , not only to get Brexit done but to reform the Civil Service from the top down. It is obvious that the Civil service has decided that its “judgment” supercedes the decisions of the oiks. This needs to change – and change swiftly. The Mandarins of Whitehall need to be shaped up or be shipped out.
Like most of America I have avoided the abject “Theater of the Absurd” being played out in Washington DC by the Democrat Party.
I have watched – with bewilderment – as the process of “getting Trump” has been the all consuming passion of the hard left since the day of the election in November of 2016. I read in the book “Shattered” how the Clinton campaign went from conceding with forced grace (as we normally expect the losing side to behave in these things) to pivoting to a message that it was all the Russians’ fault. That somehow the damned Russkis had put the fix in and tricked 62 million Americans into voting for their secret billionaire property developer puppet. And they, the gallant losers (though really winners) were going to “resist”.
And so the pathetic weep-a-thon and wail-o-rama that has become the Modus Operandi for the Democrat Party was launched on a tidal wave of tears and slobbering anguish.
For a little over three years the political and strategic aim of the Democrat Party has been to “get Trump”. Within days of the election “Impeachment” was being bandied around as a technique that could remove the Trump Obstacle from the scene and start on setting the political world of the left and of the Deep State to rights again. The Main Stream Media – ABC, NBC. CBS and the dog whistlers of the Cable CNN and MSNBC have been acting in unison in a full throated attack on whatever Donald Trump is doing – right now. Everything that happens is viewed through the prism of “how can this be used to attack Trump?” . NOTHING is viewed through the prism of “how can we help the country?”.
The push has always been to “get Trump”the hope has always been to find something, anything, which would convince the majority of US Voters that he must be removed from office. The leftist supporters, of course, have been convinced from November 2016 that Trump should be removed. Not because of what he has done or not done but because his election is just so unfair, unjust, not right, unfair and anything that removes him is fair and just.
This has led to what, in any other country, would be a hilarious spectacle – watching pompous politicians, having decided that Impeachment must be done – launch what they claim are unbiased inquiries to prove themselves right. Pelosi tries to sound serious as she announces that she has instructed the House to draw up articles of impeachment – acting as if this was something reluctantly arrived at solution instead of it being a cobbled together post facto justification for decisions reached with no proof at all before any inquiry was ever launched. And watching the media breathlessly reporting on the non-story like it was a serious moment in US History instead of being the acme of pathetic theater.
If the only thing available to them to write in an impeachment article was that Donald Trump once jaywalked – they would have already included it. Instead we are subject to the opinions of “witnesses” who actually saw nothing, opining on whether or not their own interpretation of the divining of Donald Trump’s intentions was enough to impeach him.
Really. If this tripe was going on in France the late night “comedians” in the USA would be laughing themselves into sweaty piles at the stupidity of the French. Instead, of course, those self same “comedians” are part of the background chorus chanting for something “to be done”.
Is anyone of a sound mind out there even buying into this BS?
The USA, over the last three years has an economy that is second to none. I realize – BTW – that a good economy is a complex thing and not just the result of a magic wand wave by an incoming President. I think that POTUS did do the one thing that unlocked the potential of the USA – he started rolling back regulations and needless laws and bureaucratic over-reach and, with the unchaining, things started to ramp up very fast. More and more people went back to work, unemployment dropped and dropped. There have been trade deals made, trade opponents dealt with, ISIS demolished. Overall I think the USA is doing great.
And the Democrats have done what? Nothing except organize committees to go after Trump.
We have Democrat politicians like Ocasio-Cortez shrilly claiming to have never experienced the American Dream – while being elected as the youngest member of the House of Representatives, having attended Boston University while not having any money to do so. Ms Ocasio Cortez finds herself in the legislative body of the most [powerful country on earth – and finds time to claim how hard done by she is?
In the midst of good times and good things the Democrat Party is seeking to tear society apart by balkanizing every part of society they can infiltrate. There are lessons to be gleaned from this performance by Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, Podesta, Biden, Booker Warren et al – the ONLY thing the left cares about – is power. They have proven that they do not care about the electorate, the wishes of the voters nor the welfare of the country. They care about the handles of power.
If you want an example of how the Democrats view themselves in power – you only need listen to what they are saying.
Adam Schiff holds “hearings’ in secret. Summons witnesses who have not witnessed anything and prevented others from presenting witnesses or questioning the people he has brought up. This is what passes for “inquiry” in the eyes of the left.
At the same time we have people like Elizabeth Warren – someone who is seeking to be President who says that when she becomes President she will abolish the Electoral College. Why is that such a bad thing? Well in order to be sworn in as President a candidate has to swear to Uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Warren is promising to violate it. And that is quite apart from the fact that the President is in the Executive Branch not the legislative branch. So she cannot just change the Constitution.
Or we have Billionaire Bloomberg who plans to impede the ability of US Citizens to keep and bear arms – in Direct contravention of the 2nd Amendment. Again yet another Democrat Candidate who plans to act as a dictator and violate his oath of office.
The left does not wish to govern. It wishes to rule. Not for you and me – but for their own ideology. Believe them when they keep saying exactly that.
I am in an invidious position in regard to Greta Thunberg.
I am going to have to write something defending this young woman and both sides who are currently vapouring themselves blue in the face are going to hate me for it. The Left who are busily pushing her out on the world’s stage and the lefty media that are busily shining the spotlight are as equally disgusting as the conservatives who are addressing her statements with insults about her arrogance or her stupidity.
A plague on both your houses.
Greta Thunberg is an abused young woman.
According to the hagiography produced by her mother, Greta has OCD and Aspergers. The mother also asserts, apparently seriously, that Greta can “see” the odorless, colorless gas called carbon-dioxide.
Now, normally parents spend a lot of time educating their children about things which the children might well imagine but which are not true. At some point in their lives most children get to understand that Santa Claus doesn’t bring the Christmas presents, The Tooth Fairy does not leave money under the pillow and the Easter Bunny doesn’t distribute loads of sweets and chocolate Easter eggs. We, as parents try to introduce circumstances or material which helps the child realize… it’s called growing up.
Many children have problems dealing with their imaginary fears. Monsters in the Cupboards or under the beds, ghostly creatures, animals that talk,scary movies or stories. There is a long list. Many of us who are parents can tell stories of showing a child there is nothing under the bed or in the closet and sitting with them until they settle down. Like the fantasies of free sweets, money or prezzies the monsters also, usually, fade with time.
Young people who have OCD (obsessive compulsive Disorder) can be prey to their own anxieties. They can feel that if they do not adopt or maintain a habit then bad things can happen to them. If they don’t wash their hands enough, or don’t sort their clothes correctly it can induce distress, sometimes hysterical. The patterns are individual to the person. Aspergers Syndrome covers a large amount of territory and one of the main features of it is extreme awkwardness in social situations. The inability to understand or empathize with others, the tendency to be extremely literal the inability to absorb or distinguish abstract information. I have included a link below to an article that covers a lot of it.
Ms Thunberg apparently has become obsessed with the fear of Climate Change.
Please let’s note something at this point – this is not about the truth or untruth of climate change. It is about her obsession with the fear of the subject.
Now. Normally most of us, as parents, would seek to allay our child’s fears especially if the child was fixating or obsessing about them. But with children with OCD and Aspergers this would be an incredibly delicate and difficult task to do.
Now Greta’s fears fit with how the Climate/Green Cabal would like most people to react. Blind panic. Obsessive fear. But IN Greta’s case this state is enabled by her condition, not the evidence.
But never mind!! It will do!!
So childhood fears are dragged out, made manifest and paraded around the world’s stage. Newspapers magazine and TV hang on the words of a young woman who cannot explain what Climate Change actually is – but can describe how afraid she is of it. And she is applauded for this. She is given attention by all sides who are, all of them, cementing her fears into public policy – or at least attempting to do so.
And then we have people from the conservative side explaining how stupid this view of hers is, how arrogant she is, so on and so on. Judging her as though she is some sort of young adult prodigy when she is simply a person with issues who has been exploited by the leftist media and the eco-lytes because her condition suits them perfectly.
Understand this – please – Greta Thunberg is not some adult who has come to an intellectual conclusion about a scientific proposition. She is a young woman/girl with a condition that feeds her fears and she lacks the awareness to even understand how she appears to others.
What we should be campaigning about and complaining about is the utter cold-heartedness of the Climate Alarmist Cabal and their willingness to push out on the public stage a person with issues to perform to their desires.
It is disgusting and it is abuse. Her fears do not validate the “science” the fact that she is afraid is because of her condition and these disgusting excuses for human beings are grinding her into the ground.
Please do not help them.
Attack the organ grinders not the performing little act.
A person’s right to their own self defense is both a self evident right and, in addition the only possible moral building block of a safe and secure society.
That is the proposition I am arguing for.
There is a motto that is both profound and incredibly useful, both in personal and societal usage.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum”
It translates to “If you would see peace, prepare for war”
It derives from the work of the Roman General Vegetius who said “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” which translates to “Therefore, who desires peace, prepares for war”.
Please note – and note carefully – it does NOT say “he who wants peace must fight a war” “ or “war brings peace” or anything like that. It merely states that in order for a person or a state to be secure in its peace it must be prepared for war.
But why is this the case?
Immanuel Kant in an Essay of 1795 entitled “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” had many things to say about the ingredients of a “perpetual peace” and how it could and should be achieved. I am including a link to that sketch and I would urge you, if you have not read this, to go, now and read it.
I shall be using a couple of quotes from that article – and want to be sure that they are read within the context of the overall article itself.
Section two of the essay has the following opening paragraph:
“The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.”
Kant goes on to show that the establishment of a peace can only occur when states adhere to a republican form of government. (I am probably being overly cautious here but Kant is not endorsing the Republican Party in the USA or the Republican Guard in Baathist states) Kant goes on to lay out why this is the case and is well worth the read.
“The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace?”
Kant’s essay contains some interesting arguments on “republican government” versus “democracy” and lays out the philosophical underpinning of why democracy is a despotic form of government.
But the purpose of this essay/blog post is to lay out why it is that self defense is an inherent human right that, when denied by the ruling class, leads not only to threat and violence but also to decay in the society.
Why must this be the case?
The fundamental building block of a society is the individual.
John Locke in his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government says:
“every•·individual·man has a property in his own person[= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his.” (chapter 5 – Property).
Your right to your life is a building block of any civilized society. It is the ONLY approach that guarantees respect for every individual.
In order to maintain your life you must have the right to defend it from the aggression or ill will of others who might seek to harm you. If you do not have the right to your own defense then you do not have a right to your own life. Does that mean that we are in the Hobbesian nightmare of “ The condition of man… is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”? No it does not.
What it means is that we owe ourselves a duty to protect our lives. No-one else has that duty to us. Only us. I can defer part of that duty to those who might volunteer to defend me, but the final responsibility is mine – not theirs.
If we return to the quotes at the start of this article – if I am to see peace, I should prepare for war. I should, at all times be willing to defend myself against anyone seeking to harm me. My choice of defense is mine. Not the aggressors, and not the authorities, Mine. It has to be that way because the life I hold is mine.
If we, as a society, are each determined to defend ourselves then we have that in common with each other. We can enter into business and dialog and agreements and contracts and partnerships and families in the knowledge that we share this attribute. We have respect.
But if some force ( the Leviathan that Hobbes thought was the answer) interferes in that compact, what happens?
You no longer know where I stand on the fundamental facts of our existence. Do I respect YOUR life? Do I respect YOUR rights? What was previously an established fact between us has now become a conditional – only resolvable by appeal to a third party. Which has now assumed a power over that one inviolable right – our own lives. And, in a “democracy” that power is wielded by those that command a “majority”.
When the power over our own lives, our personal property, becomes the plaything of the mob – we have reached the condition of war of every man against every man. Instead of our own personal judgment we are at the mercy of of rabble-rousers who can command a majority to take away the rights that we should hold.
And once lost those rights will only ever be restored by the blood that established them in the first place.
Kant summed up, nicely, why Democracy is Despotism
“Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, “all,” who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom. “
Please re-read that.
It is simple – if we wish to see peace we must be prepared for war.
Some great work by the Mexican Navy and law enforcement has incredibly worrying implications for all of us in the USA.
On the 23rd of August 2019 they issued a press release saying that the Mexican Navy had intercepted a fentanyl shipment from China reportedly to be delivered to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel of 24 Metric TONS of fentanyl.
Sounds like a lot – does it not? It certainly should because it IS a lot. I have included a link to one of the articles (in Spanish) below here along with a screen shot of the article. The amount given in the first paragraph of the article is 23,368 kilograms of fentanyl. It is rated as around 100 times stronger than morphine as a painkiller. IN 2015 the total amount of fentanyl used in healthcare worldwide was 1,600 Kg.
First – and very importantly – fentanyl has an absolute place in medically supervised pain control. I urge you to read, at least, the Wikipedia entry for the drug to get some realistic background on this medication.
It has also become one of the prime additives to the illicit trade in heroin and morphine.
It is an extremely dangerous drug. It can cause an overdose in very small quantities – the estimate for a lethal dose in humans is 2mg (according to the FDA and European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). This would mean that 1 kg of fentanyl is enough drug to cause death by overdose to 500,000 humans. You might want to re-read that last sentence.
The shipment that was intercepted was 23,368 Kgs. Multiply that by 500,000 and you will get a surprisingly HUGE figure. A frighteningly huge figure.
The figure is high enough to ask the question – is delivery of 24 tons of this lethal chemical a threat of some kind? This amount is 14 times the entire medical consumption of the world 4 years ago. Yet some organization in China cares enough to manufacture it and ship it to a drug cartel in Mexico. A drug cartel, moreover, whose main targets for drug distribution are the USA and Europe.
But if THAT was not frightening enough – what may be more frightening is the complete lack of reaction from the world’s press. I just (13:05 Eastern Time August 26th 2019) checked CNN.COM – not a mention on their page. Lots of articles about dogs, snark about Trump, but absolutely nothing about the interception of an existential threat to the population of the Americas. Curious to say the least. The BBC – nothing. NYT – nothing. Twitter had a burst of activity but it has faded a little bit.
Ask yourself this simple question – had the Mexican Navy intercepted a nuclear weapon – a small one with a kiloton yield that could have potentially killed 200,000 people – how would this same press have reacted? Would they have ignored it in favor of speculating about Trump?
The questions none of these “guardians of the truth” are asking.
Who on earth made 24 tons of one of the most lethal opioid drugs in the world?
Why did they make it?
How did they manage to ship it from Shanghai to Mexico?
Why is the Sinaloa Drug Cartel shopping for this drug?
I did send an email to the DEA Press Office asking them to confirm the story from Mexico – should they reply with a statement I will edit this post to update it.
Received from the DEA
We cannot confirm the contents of the seizure at this time, as the contents are still being tested.
A longish time ago I ran across the statement that “97% of Scientists agree that human caused global warming is real”. Something like that.
When I first read it, I laughed out loud assuming it was someone’s idea of a joke. But I was, I admit it, wrong. It was the then latest salvo of the PR Barrage coming from the IPCC and other activists around the globe. It seems that they thought they would launch their PR Blitz using a logical fallacy and proceed from there.
Since that point in time I have come to the conclusion that the whole concept of “anthropomorphic climate change” is a fantasy. It is a fantasy being used as a battering ram to force unwanted and viciously totalitarian SOCIAL change.
Having stated my controversy up front please do me a favor and read why I have come to this conclusion.
I mentioned my initial reaction about the “97% agree”. I am a fan of the study of logical fallacies. That statement about “97% of Scientists agree that…” is a logical fallacy that is called The Argument from Numbers (Argumentum ad Populum). It is the misconception that because many believe something it must be correct. I once saw this lampooned hilariously on a usenet Newsgroup called alt.talk.origins as;
“Eat Dung! One billion flies cannot be wrong”.
The assertion (argument) is ridiculous even at first blush – for a number of reasons. Science does not run on consensus – it runs on proof. It runs on theory, experiment and analysis and review. Most scientists supported the aether theory of what exists out in space which was then disproved by the Micelson-Morley experiments. The majority were wrong. Period. And once the work of Michelson and Morley was reviewed, tested and accepted then the scientific view of the cosmos changed.
It is ludicrous at second blush too – the idea that 97% of scientists would agree on anything as nebulous as “anthopomorphic climate change” could only be stated seriously by a PR person because Scientists don’t do things that way.
Later investigation as to where the phrase came from revealed that it was a survey sent out to thousands of scientists who worked or had been associated with environmentalism or climate studies or meteorology and it was the count of those few responses that they got to the survey that came up with 97% of the responses agreed … So if it were to be truthfully stated it should have said “97% of Scientists who believe in anthropomorphic climate change agree that it is real” which lacks the same panache and punch of the original, but false, assertion.
So my first encounter with the Warmist Agenda Keepers Organization (WAKO) was not auspicious.
And so I watched with an admittedly somewhat prejudiced eye as the Warmist Jihad got rolling.
Have you ever been involved in an argument with a Warmist Jihadi? They will quite happily bombard you with whatever facts and figures and tables they have been provided with and ask you to “disprove” them. If you try they will ask you what your “training” in Climate Science is – and imply that you are not qualified to comment on such fancy science work which is way out of your league.
Hmm. This is a bit of conundrum – is it not? Unless you, as a citizen and a tax payer, are prepared to go through 6 years of expensive college you are not permitted to pass opinions on anthropomorphic climate change? You are therefore OBLIGED to accept unreservedly, the opinions of your betters? Say it ain’t so, Joe.
It ain’t so.
The data presented is just a statement (or argument as it is referred to in the Fallacy trade). So while the scientific notation might be awe inspiring the way it is being presented may be less so.
It was in this period that I first encountered the word “Denier”. “He/she denies climate change!!” “he/she is just a denier!” “climate change denial!”. This use of a pejorative label to write off opposition is a common tactic within what passes for political discourse these days. It does not deal with objections but instead attempts to stonewall any opposition by just using the dismissive and moving on.
During this period there was a leak from the University of East Anglia. Emails archived at the Climate Research Unit were unearthed and published much to the dismay of the warmist scientists who found their nasty little words and plans put on public display. Their preferences for silencing opposition, to denying publishing to papers that did not forward the Warmist agenda and so on. The release of those emails should have put paid to the warming “juggernaut” but it did not.
Instead it careened on, trying out various messages of doom and woe. Publishing drop dead timelines when things would become irreversible – and then re-wording them when they failed to come to pass. As each modeled prediction failed – they produced more models. And they brought forth probably the weirdest of their arguments. Their coterie of priest-like “believers”.
A portly politician brought forth a DVD. An Inconvenient Truth. The definitive “argument” for Global Warming?
But let us apply the warmist test for validity here.
How well trained is Al Gore in Climate Science?
Well – he doesn’t have any. He went to Harvard and got his degree in “Government”. Reportedly he did not do well in science and maths.
He is a bureaucrat and a Politician. He is the son of a politician and has lived comfortably in the bosom of government largesse for his entire life.
He has been lauded by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”. Again lets us apply the warmist test of validity to his status. How much training does Nye have in Climate Science? Well, er… None. He does have an engineering degree – which puts him well ahead of Al Gore but his training was as a mechanical Engineer not in climate sciences. He is “famous” for communicating about Science. But he is not a climate scientist – so by warming standards he has no cred to argue about it.
Next on the list are the celebrity Priest-Kings of Climate Science. Let’s take Leonardo de Caprio . His qualifications for Climatology? None.
Prince Harry of England. His climate science creds? None. He did, however graduate from the Military Academy of Sandhurst in England.
Judd Apatow – film director who just recently decided to tweet out about how we are literally murdering our children? His qualifications? None.
And finally – the Pièce de résistance – Greta Thunberg. A 16 year old Swedish Schoolgirl without even a basic secondary education. According to her mother’s writing Greta has one qualification – she can “see” carbon dioxide.
“Greta is one of the few people who can recognize our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how greenhouse gases flow from our chimneys, rise to the sky through the wind and turn our atmosphere into a gigantic, invisible heap of waste.”
Other than that her top qualification seems to be her wholesale fear.
According to the Warmist Jihad Handbook – in order to criticize or discuss Climate Change you need to be a climate Scientist. But NONE of these people have any qualifications to do that. Yet the press regularly and forcefully publishes their opinions as if they were somehow more than just gullible drivel.
And to show their commitment to the cause – their wholesale belief in how bad CO2 and emissions are we have Al Gore who has made tens of millions of dollars from exploiting the Global warming Jihad. He owns two large properties on in Montecito CA which is 6,000 square feet and one in Tennessee which is 10,000 square feet. That is one hell of a “footprint” for someone who claims to be all over this Global warming thing. Considering that these two properties are for 2 adults… Obviously being a Priest-King of the Warmist Jihad requires a lot of room.
Or Leonardo de Caprio who is so important to the Jihad that he must take private jets where e’er he goeth. Wafted, presumably by warm winds while the jets spill tons of CO2 per hour – just for him.
Prince Harry – another of the private jet fliers, a man with a modest footprint of an estate in the Cotswolds and house in London all paid for by the taxpayers of the UK. Thank God the man is willing to lecture us mortals on a subject he knows nothing about.
Greta Thunberg at least appears to go for the whole no carbon thing. Planning to sail across the Atlantic in a racing yacht, built of – carbon fiber. Can’t make this stuff up.
And there we have it – ignorant, uneducated people advocating wholesale social change for OTHERS while busily indulging themselves in what they claim to oppose.
Now you may begin to understand why I think this whole thing is a total crock.