I love the spirited debate on Facebook. I have had some of the most vigorous debates with my friends on Facebook, the kind that makes you dig and dig for truth. I have never formally learned the art of debating, and hence, my colleagues on FB probably do face plants in the palms of their collective hands as we discuss the topics at hand. I have come to use my own brand of understanding a given subject, which admittedly is probably flawed, but for the most part, has served well these 56 odd years.
To me when looking a political issue, I realize that the elected officials we have in office have little time to become an expert on any one given topic, yet the preach their stance as if they had invented them. Given this understanding one has only to look at the motivations they have to promote any given issue.
For instance, the Global Warming debate: Any thinking person should realize that no matter what is happening with regard to weather patterns, temperature, or even the spheres of atmosphere, we humans have not been keeping track of the patterns of weather, or the atmosphere for long enough to pronounce such drastic judgments and propose to inflict so much hardship on our own species, all in the name of “saving the earth”. I have read several accounts of the evidences that warming and cooling trends have probably happened long, long ago before man had become industrialized, and there is probably something credible found in the claims, just as today’s Global Warming scientists claims.
But to me, using the common sense approach, and my understanding of scientific discovery and study, the “science” we are akin to today surrounding the GW movement, is not based on the study of any phenomena, as much as it is the defense and promotion of a particular view.
Again, back to the politicians and their motives… When an idea like the theory of GW is first postulated, it is naturally looked at skeptically, as is any theory thrown out for consideration, as that is my understanding of science. That it is the strengthening of a theory by the systematic tearing down of it by coming at it from all angles to attempt to disprove it that makes it become a strong working scientific hypothesis. So we come to the politician test: How does a theory all of a sudden become gospel to the scientific community? What would make a portion of the scientific community promote the theory of GW and abandon the act of looking at it objectively and scientifically to the point, that they and one political party are nearly synonymous on their pursuit to make GW a real truth?
I think the answer lies in the science of human behavior, rather than in Global Warming. As I have made reference to many times before, this is not America’s first climatic rodeo. In the last century there were at least 56 different major newspaper headlines declaring the onset of either an ice age or melt down from the early 1900’s to present. The current craze of “climate change” wasn’t very popular until the news media realized that by promoting and demagoguing something as omnipresent as the weather, they had a cash cow that had massive shelf life. The political scene soon found their piece in the part of promoting it by doing what they do best: promoting a system of taxation and control to save us from the unproven theory. Then the need for more ammunition for the movement, and the government grant money began flowing, and the government did again what they are good at: spending our money… So in a scientific sense it is far more profitable to find in favor of GW than against it. And, “viola!” we have the current fervor of today, and the thousands of willing tools in the citizenry that help carry it along for the media and geo-politicians. What a perfect vessel for all… All except the average person that has to pay the bill for an imaginary crisis.
But I digress, that is why it is vitally important to discuss the dynamic of what makes a theory or policy work, not just post a link to a new site and quote a headline. If raising taxes on the populace is the formula for a robust economy, than let’s discuss how that happens. If the Tea Party is really a racist bunch of terrorists, let’s cite examples and discuss their ideology. My recent favorite is to list negative things that happened during a president or whoever’s term, and attribute them to the given individual’s policies, regardless of how much good, was done, even if it surpassed the negatives in their term, or even ignoring the possibilities that the negatives came as a result of previous policies enacted before their tenure. These and other statements given, with no working dynamic to illustrate why, are a sad testimony to our culture. If we demanded of ourselves that we understood why we believed, what we believe, rather than riding the emotional roller coaster, and public opinion, I believe we would reduce the current division, and actually heal our land to a certain degree.
Imagine if we had a nation of concerned rational people that thought for themselves, and not being content to be “first stage” thinkers, imagine how prosperous we could be. Imagine how utterly unimportant and unnecessary a big bloated government would become…
To me when looking a political issue, I realize that the elected officials we have in office have little time to become an expert on any one given topic, yet the preach their stance as if they had invented them. Given this understanding one has only to look at the motivations they have to promote any given issue.
For instance, the Global Warming debate: Any thinking person should realize that no matter what is happening with regard to weather patterns, temperature, or even the spheres of atmosphere, we humans have not been keeping track of the patterns of weather, or the atmosphere for long enough to pronounce such drastic judgments and propose to inflict so much hardship on our own species, all in the name of “saving the earth”. I have read several accounts of the evidences that warming and cooling trends have probably happened long, long ago before man had become industrialized, and there is probably something credible found in the claims, just as today’s Global Warming scientists claims.
But to me, using the common sense approach, and my understanding of scientific discovery and study, the “science” we are akin to today surrounding the GW movement, is not based on the study of any phenomena, as much as it is the defense and promotion of a particular view.
Again, back to the politicians and their motives… When an idea like the theory of GW is first postulated, it is naturally looked at skeptically, as is any theory thrown out for consideration, as that is my understanding of science. That it is the strengthening of a theory by the systematic tearing down of it by coming at it from all angles to attempt to disprove it that makes it become a strong working scientific hypothesis. So we come to the politician test: How does a theory all of a sudden become gospel to the scientific community? What would make a portion of the scientific community promote the theory of GW and abandon the act of looking at it objectively and scientifically to the point, that they and one political party are nearly synonymous on their pursuit to make GW a real truth?
I think the answer lies in the science of human behavior, rather than in Global Warming. As I have made reference to many times before, this is not America’s first climatic rodeo. In the last century there were at least 56 different major newspaper headlines declaring the onset of either an ice age or melt down from the early 1900’s to present. The current craze of “climate change” wasn’t very popular until the news media realized that by promoting and demagoguing something as omnipresent as the weather, they had a cash cow that had massive shelf life. The political scene soon found their piece in the part of promoting it by doing what they do best: promoting a system of taxation and control to save us from the unproven theory. Then the need for more ammunition for the movement, and the government grant money began flowing, and the government did again what they are good at: spending our money… So in a scientific sense it is far more profitable to find in favor of GW than against it. And, “viola!” we have the current fervor of today, and the thousands of willing tools in the citizenry that help carry it along for the media and geo-politicians. What a perfect vessel for all… All except the average person that has to pay the bill for an imaginary crisis.
But I digress, that is why it is vitally important to discuss the dynamic of what makes a theory or policy work, not just post a link to a new site and quote a headline. If raising taxes on the populace is the formula for a robust economy, than let’s discuss how that happens. If the Tea Party is really a racist bunch of terrorists, let’s cite examples and discuss their ideology. My recent favorite is to list negative things that happened during a president or whoever’s term, and attribute them to the given individual’s policies, regardless of how much good, was done, even if it surpassed the negatives in their term, or even ignoring the possibilities that the negatives came as a result of previous policies enacted before their tenure. These and other statements given, with no working dynamic to illustrate why, are a sad testimony to our culture. If we demanded of ourselves that we understood why we believed, what we believe, rather than riding the emotional roller coaster, and public opinion, I believe we would reduce the current division, and actually heal our land to a certain degree.
Imagine if we had a nation of concerned rational people that thought for themselves, and not being content to be “first stage” thinkers, imagine how prosperous we could be. Imagine how utterly unimportant and unnecessary a big bloated government would become…
