top of page

Dinosaurs and Glaciers

Updated: Dec 7, 2019

The extinction of dinosaurs and the disappearance of the glaciers that covered much of North America prior to the use of combustible fossil fuels are testimony to the fact that there is no such thing as climatological stasis. It is the nature and extent of anthropogenic climate change where the political “debate” ... when permitted ... lies. Debate, that is, notwithstanding the fingers-in-ears-eyes-shut-while-emphatically-shaking-head declaration that “the science is settled.” Those who continue to challenge the notion that we have and/or can control global weather patterns, average temperatures and sea levels are climatological heretics sharing equal ideological status with Holocaust deniers. The tyranny of this "movement" has now become most grossly manifest by its advocacy for the criminalization of the thinking of the opposition. The movement is no longer about science. It is about politics and science. Ummm … “political science” … if you will.


The politics of anthropogenic climate change has most recently morphed into hyperbolic global expiration date fear mongering. It is the enviro-progressive use of cataclysm that clouds the debate. Irrationality is not scientific. Fear is not scientific. Criminalization of thought is not scientific. There are many who believe … I among them … that progressives have co-opted the notion that “there is no such thing as climatological stasis” for their own political purposes. While we all understand and believe that the activities of man can and necessarily do effect his environment, there actually are some us that understand and believe that that effect is a small part of global climate symbiosis. Despite the smallness of 'our' part, the changes advocated by enviro-progressives go to the very heart of our economic stability and viability. Understand, it is a direct assault on Capitalism that underlies the manufactured hysteria and fuels the mindless repetition of the eco-mantra that 'climate change it is our greatest existential threat'. The best way to illustrate this is the lack of concern about the unmitigated emissions of India and China exceeding by smokey multiples our own. Regrettably, economic subversion has never been deterred by the cries of hypocrisy.


While I’m in agreement with the importance of being good stewards who seek less noxious energy sources through innovation … the selection, evaluation, and development of alternative and renewable sources of energy need to be the product of a measured cost benefit analysis where economic growth and stability are acknowledged and considered to be important factors. But, while science is dispassionate … politics is not. The cultural divide over anthropogenic climate change goes to the very heart of the fundamental difference between the “belief” systems of progressives and conservatives. Progressive rejection of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God puts man in control and responsible for 'saving the planet.' Theirs is a political ideology that denies God’s existence and seeks to establish heaven on earth … or in the Marxist vernacular … “Utopia”. It is no surprise that enviro-progressives see themselves able to control, manage and manipulate the laws of nature at the center of climatological stasis. Conservatives believe that the laws of nature were written by an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God that is in control, and to whom we are accountable. It is the fundamental divide that must inevitably be crossed in each aspect of our lives. God’s funny that way.


I hope to have inspired a smile from my scientist atheist friend(s) who have no doubt concluded that my “beliefs” and perspective hearkens from the days of the (aforementioned) dinosaurs and glaciers. Understand, while I believe in intelligent design … I love science. I don’t see faith and science as mutually exclusive. I see scientific thought, experimentation and exploration as a quest that will ultimately lead to the irrefutable conclusion that there is an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God. But I confess, that may be my own prejudice … because I love irony more than I love science.


Until then … we’ll all have to weather the storm together.

__________________



Comments


bottom of page