Identity Verified Thinker in Politics / Forms of Government / Republic
Thomas J Donegan
Thomas J Donegan
Born January 22, 1958 Graduated 1976 Lawrence County Vo-Tech U.S.Navy, 11/76 - 10/82 Cryptologic Technician M-branch Graduated 1989 Slippery Rock University B.S. Mathematics, minors: Philosophy, History U.S. Government 1990 -2001 Various private sector Electrical/Electronics jobs 2001- present
 

Categories

This Blog has no active categories.
 
Close  
Posted in Science / Environment / Climate Change

The Major Problem with Climate Change Arguments, Scott Pruitt (Trump's EPA Administrator) and Chris Wallace

Jun. 5, 2017 6:39 pm


Those that argue that global climate-change (and of course, if man were not destroying the planet, the climate would be in stasis…) is a very, very serious matter – whose inattention places the globe in greater jeopardy than ISIS (probably the last thought that passed through the minds of those murdered by representatives of ISIS on London Bridge 06/03/2017) – may have a compelling argument (This writer thinks it is horse-manure!), but it is delivered by people that advocate abortion on demand, and consider sodomy to be a inalienable Right! Such views implicitly deny that there is a God and that morality is objective and universal; such views argue that all things are reducible to matter and thus such people are inveterate liars, not necessarily with overt malice, but the type that derive meaning from meaninglessness by managing all things i.e., by playing or making themselves gods.

Chesterton wrote of such dispositions as early as 1903, seeing the principles which were animating the intellectual contemporaries of his generation (some were friends e.g., George Bernard Shaw) of his. As it is, if one explicitly - or implicitly - denies/rejects God and objective moral principles, then those that do are not worthy of trust, not even a little bit of trust. I had begun a sentence – just now – and by mistake typed “SS,” and it dawned on me that those desiring to control the globe though such accords are akin to the 3rd Reich in their view of humans, and human life; they may not desire to exterminate humans in such grisly fashion as the Reich, but if it could be done cleanly and with out all the mess of millions (or billions; the damn planet has far too many “feeders” for the average global-climate change advocate liking; rest assured) screaming, blood, burnt bodies, who honestly thinks that the social-political Left would not make that a reality?

If the global climate change consortium were able to re-work the Declaration of Independence they would strike some its most memorable and moving lines, viz: “We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator certain inalienable Rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” We suspect that the rework would be something like this:

“We the People of the Globe - representatives informed by a consensus of modern science, and leading scientists - are tasked with the need to determine when Life is of value to the global ecological system, and when it is not. We recognize that it is certain that the globe is proliferated with many people whose view of life heretofore has prevented this global body from accomplishing all that needs to be done to secure – for the Posterity of humankind – the management of global resources; we have to come the point when such obstructionism can no longer be tolerated. The task of organizing the planets, and its finite resources is far to important to allow the ill-informed, dogmatic bigotry of the past to obstruct the global community, and thus we shall take what measures we must to advance the interests of all of humankind, so as to secure the only home we shall ever know, for our posterity... We the People of the Globe reserve the right to determine which “rights” may be distributed equally and which may need restriction for certain segments of the World community...

Scott Pruitt (head of the EPA) and Al Gore (Former Vice-President; presently major Snake-Oil Salesman) were questioned by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday regarding the Paris Climate Change Accord. As usual Wallace was much more deferential to the representative of the reasonable social-political Left than he was with Pruitt… Pruitt attempted to make the argument that the Accord hurts the United States - effectively representing the transfer several trillions of dollars of economic growth over the next 10 years, to Europeans, China, India and a number of developing nations. Pruitt also argued that the USA has trimmed its carbon footprint more than other of the other nations involved, and that the US Courts will treat the accord as a Treaty, forcing more environmental regulations upon American business, thus placing the American worker at increasing disadvantages vis-à-vis economic competitors of the USA. President Trump should make the argument, and Pruitt should have made the argument - for him - that the Climate Initiative should be made into a treaty... As a treaty - all Nations would be bound by Law, and all could then be sanctioned, but this is not why Trump should push it as a treaty; the reason it should be submitted to the Senate is because it will never be passed... All of those Democrats that care so much for the environment, care more about remaining in the Senate...

As to the religion of man-made global climate change (Note an individual entering a serene lake or pool may make some small, ephemeral, but measurable, difference in the pool's temperature, such is analogous of the human activity vis-à-vis the planet...), this writer again suggests that a C-SPAN debate regarding manmade climate change – for as long as the scientists pro/con choose to debate – is the way to settle this argument within the public. If the environmental crowd - and all of their scientists - could convince the public, they would be demanding the debate! My guess is that the social-political Left and their climate “scientists,” would not want such a debate, and that is why the manmade global climate change skeptics ought to insist upon such a debate so as to inform the public. The ancillary topics of what is science and what are its criteria will undoubtedly be addressed all to the public benefit… It would immunize a sizable portion of the electorate from being snookered by mountebanks in lab coats seeking endowment grants.

Thomas J. Donegan

guildma@msn.com

 
There are currently no comments.
 
 
Latest Thinking in Politics & Government
corner
corner
 
 
Latest Ebooks