The Great Global Warming Swindle

I recently watched this documentary (YouTube link) and I began to watch this one as well, which features David Legates for a while in the beginning. The first one is one of the more substantive documentaries that I've seen when it comes to facts, logic and empirical evidence. It's short on imagery, feeelings and hysteria. I haven't watched Al Gore's documentary yet, mainly because his psychological dynamics are already clear.

Speaking of hysteria and Al Gore, now Al Gore (Alpha Male Al!) seems to be saying that Mommy Nature has a bit of a fever! So now it seems that every perturbation of her womb can be taken as symbolic of the Great Doom. Nothing against the notion of a Great Doom, as it is inevitable that every living thing in the universe will die. That's something that Romantics who worship Nature don't tend to focus on, yet there are many lines of evidence that it is true nonethless.

I read at the bottom of the Wiki article on David Legates that governor Minner has said that he's not allowed to link his position to disagreement with hysterical claims about global warming. I guess that's one more scientist who can join the "scientific consensus" that Leftists are forming.

The historical pattern to fascist scholarship was that they would form a consensus with State funding and the like and then declare themselves overwhelmed by all the excrement of their own Herd. Sometimes I wonder if there is a similar Herd growing now, so on a historical note the old Nazi propagandists for "living space" and the "blood and soil" who lectured against the "murderous factories" held a Romantic and vaguely technophobic view of Nature. (Even as they always used technology to the utmost for their own ends. It seems it's always someone else using technology who is the problem.) It's an ironic pattern because they would argue that technology and civilization is somehow unnatural by its nature, as opposed to the organic and so on which is natural by nature. Many mixed their notion of "natural" in with the notion of "natural selection" based on the Darwinian creation myth because they fall into pseudo-science easily given their lack of conceptual and philosophical thinking. In other words they simply assume that man can use the practical application of logic and science in technology in ways that alienate himself from Nature. How this is so given the Leftist worldview that scientifically man is naturally just matter in motion is not explained, it's just assumed that humans have a capacity for going against Nature. If those who make such assumptions would stop assuming things and begin thinking about them then maybe those who fall into this type of mental incompetence could make more of a habit of thinking in general. The Nazis used to describe how they began to feel they were thinking with the notion of "biological thinking." It seems that some people feel they are thinking when actually their brains are ruled by conditioning based on the images, hysteria and feeelings of their "cult"ure. They may as well have excrement for brains at that point.

[Edit: If anyone local wants a decent copy of the documentaries, e-mail me.]

A scientist on an emerging form of socialist pseudo-science....

A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg has received multiple death threats for questioning the extent to which human activities are driving global warming. ”Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor. “I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.” Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology […] recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

cf. Uncommon Dissent

It's ashame that the science of global warming has basically been thoroughly polluted by socialism. Leftists abusing science is nothing new, even before Malthus Leftists of the totalitarian sort have created various forms of pseudo-science in order to make science into something that it is not. They seek to make it into a totalizing worldview that therefore justifies and supports totalitarian measures without realizing that a totalizing worldview cannot be scientific.

It seems that now that eugenicists/Nazis and Communists have generally been defeated the pattern of changing limited forms of falsifiable science into totalizing and therefore unfalsifiable forms of pseudo-science has found an outlet in "global warming."

Putting the issue of sound/falsifiable science aside, it's interesting how the average American seems to be taken in by simplistic political arguments that appeal to a mixture of their own pride and cynicism. E.g. arguments based on who is funding what in which we are supposed to assume that all research which is funded by an industry with an interest in the results is therefore invalid. People are being led to be cynical about it instead of truly skeptical, otherwise people who make that argument would apply the same reasoning to research funded by the State by noting that the State has vested interests in the results supporting socialism and scientism. (Socialism and scientism because funding will tend to be linked to increasing State power (socialism) and answers of uncertainty or a lack of totalizing knowledge will tend to be minimized, leading to scientism.) It is interesting that people of a populist bent often don't seem to apply the same skeptical reasoning that they apply to Big Business to the State.

No researcher is pure as the driven snow no matter who funds them and all should be questioned. They should all have a better answer than: "Well, a lot of scientists funded by the State agree or somethin' and everyone who disagrees isn't funded by the State. That's what makes what we say objective and we all agree! We ALL agree...and don't you feel as overwhelmed as we do by that?" If that is the type of answer that they give to skeptics then science has little to do with their claims.

Windsurfing at the Keys

A clever use of human imagination...

How humans got so clever, from Darwin says just so.

Hmmm....it's really not that clever a use of the human imagination. I suppose I'd say that some "just so" stories are only so-so.

It all happened just so if you imagine it so, don't you know?

Thanks for the link...

The Grub Street Plumber is posting and he's been kind enough to give me a little credit for something.

Pointing to basic historical facts having to do with Nazism and Darwinism is generally like debating a Holocaust denier because they both tend to believe that their own imagination about the past is sound historical evidence and that their claims about people's intents, motivations or conspiracies are more important than the empirical evidence.