Beware of environmentalists. Just because you claim to be “pro-science” does not mean you ARE pro-science.
Being pro-science means you are pro-OBJECTIVITY. Objectivity means facts, logic and conclusions or hypotheses that could ONLY be derived from those known facts. Objectivity, by definition, means honesty. By definition, the objective do not concern themselves with politics — at least, not with political power. Do you really need me to persuade you that political power has nothing whatsoever to do with honesty and truth?
The language of the environmentalists is not objective. It is not pro-science. Their language is the language of medieval advocates of the Catholic Church’s power, “scholars” who cared nothing for science. Today’s equivalent use terms like “climate deniars”. Their terms are crafted to intimidate, to shun, to polarize and eradicate dissension. These are the tactics and attitudes of anything BUT scientists.
Environmentalists don’t seek truth. They rely on consensus. Anyone in favor of “climate change” will insist that 90 plus percent of scientists agree with them. So if 90 plus percent of scientists agree with something, that automatically makes it right? Hitler controlled science in Nazi Germany. I bet more than 90 percent of scientists officially agreed with his sick theories. That’s proof by itself? Since when did MAN — not method, not reality — offer the final say on anything true?
More than that, they’re lying. You can find a lot more than 5-10 percent of scientists who don’t sign on for all of climate change theory. Many scientists say there’s evidence to suggest it, and evidence to refute it. Many point to the objective fact that we’re in a state of cooling now — if anything, the slow evolution (in nature) of another Ice Age. Some will speculate that man is warming this next Ice Age a bit (a good thing for humans!) while others speculate we simply don’t know. Sheer common sense will tell us we can’t accurately predict the temperature and weather a week from now. So how on earth can we predict it 50 years or a century from now?
The people who label themselves “pro-” something are often guilty of the opposite. Obama buys a beach house while claiming he believes the oceans will rise any day now, especially if Trump is reelected. Al Gore uses up a huge percentage of the “carbon footprint” of Tennessee. Rich Hollywood and British royal leftists fly in huge jets while lecturing the little people they must give up all fossil fuels in 10 years or less, even if that means walking or riding bicycles. Freud and psychological theorists since have their speculation on why people act this way; but they’re right, it happens all the time. If you feel a need to call yourself “pro-science” while speaking and practicing just the opposite, then you’re probably not pro-science.
I’m not sure what the opponents of “climate denial” wish to call themselves. Climate affirmers? I don’t like calling them environmentalists. This implies they are good for the environment. But their concept of “the environment” leaves NO room whatsoever for the good of human beings. When a lot of befuddled, ignorant people sign on for environmentalism, they’re perhaps motivated by things like a beautiful eagle, a spectacular sunset or a plush, sprawling forest. There is nothing wrong with these things, and nobody in opposition to “climate change” calls for abolishing these things. To imply they do proves the dishonesty of their argument for “science” right there.
The Sierra Club, like all the other Swamp power-groups of D.C., is free to exit politics and government, and simply buy up and maintain as much private land as it wishes, demanding only that the government respect its property rights. Instead, what started out as conservation groups have now morphed into literally Communistic calls for command-and-control economics, where literally nothing is privately owned and all is under the control of the federal government.
It’s not about climate. It’s about control. Constitution-deniars and individual rights-deniars see their opportunity in environmentalism. They can use worry for birds and nature to sell people on things like socialized medicine, nationalized pharmaceutical companies, 90 percent tax rates and elimination of the First and Second Amendments.
Don’t fall for it. I know about half of America has. I’m hoping the other half can save us from restoring the medieval era that climate affirmers will lead us into.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, and see drmichaelhurd on Instagram.