|
 It seems the more news I read about "global warming," the more it comes across as a cult and not a scientific theory.
For example, last year we were supposed to have a record hurricane
season because of global warming. Instead, it was a very mild season --
but that's proof of the theory.
Last winter, we had one of the snowiest winters on record. The cold was proof of global warming.
We are repeatedly told that single incidents or seasons can't be
used as arguments against global warming -- but Myanmar's recent
cyclone disaster (death toll: 100,000 and rising) is proof for the theory.
A while ago, I had two simple questions that I thought would help
separate the scientists from the zealots, the honest seekers of truth
from the evangelists, the sincere theorists from the fanatics:
1) What is the "natural" temperature and climate of the earth that we are so rapidly moving away from?
2) What sort of evidence would the global-warming advocates accept as proof that their theories are wrong?
I've dealt with the annoying evangelicals many times in my life.
Usually, they're the most irritating sorts of Christians -- EVERYTHING
is "proof" that God exists. The classic paradox -- where God pronounces
that he doesn't need to prove He exists -- is literally a tenet of
faith to them, and anything anyone brings up as evidence for the
non-existence of their God is actually proof that He does. Hell, if I
get exasperated and say "Jesus Christ, you're annoying," that's PROOF
that I believe in Jesus.
I see the same mentality in the global-warming arguments. Every
single incident, every single datum point, every single observation,
every single measurement, is proof of the theory, and anything cited as
evidence against their precious belief is treated much like many
cult-like religions treat heresy and apostasy and blasphemy.
(Scientology and Islam come to mind.)
I guess there's something in my psychological makeup that makes me
want to be burned at the stake, because I have this compulsion to piss
off zealots of pretty much any persuasion.
Luckily for me, the global footprint of my pyre would probably be prohibitive. Source
|
