On Liberalism and Ideology

Has anyone ever noticed that liberals who assert that they are the people of tolerance, open mindedness and being non judgmental, are probably the most hateful, close minded and judgmental people in the world?

Particularly when it comes to particular issues like climate change and global warming.

Ask any so-called environmentalist what ENSO is or if they have looked at the latest data concerning the current PDO. Chances are very likely that you will get a response of silence, or a sneer and an expletive or two; you may get an occasional response that is half way coherent. Yet, by and large many of these tolerant, open minded and non judgmental environmentalists don’t take the time and make an attempt to get a basic understanding of the science behind it.

Now, why is that?

There are several reason, ideology probably being the most prevalent. When a person or group has an agenda that’s based on ideology nothing else matters, least of all facts and opposing points of view. Take the scientific consensus argument that environmentalists use as “proof” that the modern human industrial population is the root cause behind climate change and global warming. The very idea, to someone with an ideological agenda, is the foundation of their argument. When presented to someone that has an understanding of how science works, making such an assertion is tantamount to scientific heresy.

Anyone, with a modicum of rationality, knows that there is no place for consensus in the scientific community; if there were then there would be no progress or eureka moments. Indeed, progress and advancement would likely never be achieved; technological advancement and innovation would cease to exist. Instead of the hunting rifle we use the club. As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics…”

When someone attempts to voice an opposing point of view to an environmentalist, they are often met with derision, scorn and vitriolic comments. This is due primarily to the fact that environmentalists can’t respond in any intelligent manner, thus rendering any debate useless. Oh, and they almost always end their derisive comments with “scientific consensus”.

With this “eco-fascism”, it should come as no surprise that anthropogenic climate change/global warming has stumbled into the political arena. So much so, that it as a major player in the current political stump speeches; though it has seemed to have lost its network glitz recently.  What’s particularly scary is that made up issues, like this one, has the propensity to alter economic decisions that may prove disastrous in years to come. Yet, none of these people will ever likely be held accountable for their actions; hind sight may be 20-20, but to a politician it’s almost always myopic (Just look at the current financial mess, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. Two people inextricably linked to it, yet neither will ever be held to account for it).



Now we have these politicians trying to pass legislation to “reduce” greenhouse gas emissions to some amount by some future date. What are the odds that these politicians have crystal balls in their offices? Well, if you think about, they do and they are called “scientists” that use “computer climate models”. This is yet another fallacy that is at the heart of the liberal environmentalist’s ideology and it’s also completely misunderstood and abused. Coupled with “scientific consensus”, it is proof positive that we are the cause of climate change and we better change our ways or we are doomed.