Pirate's Cove

We’re back to “the debate is over.” Because that’s apparently how Science works for climate cultists. Second, conservatives are not the same from country to country. US conservatives are more of Classical Liberals, per Political Theory 101, while Canadian European Conservatives are more Classical Conservatives, and, yeah, there’s a difference. Third, it’s strange that one of the preeminent college institutions, Harvard, wants to shut down debate. Isn’t that part of what education is about?

Global Conservatives and the Myth of a Climate Change Debate

On Saturday, the Canadian Conservative Party voted down a recent proposal for the party to become more green-friendly, rejecting stances such as “Canadian businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility” and “climate change is real.”

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole was seen Friday urging his colleagues to be more open-minded, believing that the party’s failure to recognize the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change would hurt their chances to challenge the Liberal Party coalition and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the next election. But the 54 to 46 percent vote is the latest affirmation of the enduring conservative trend to reject modern climate realities.

If you have to use “consensus”, it’s not science.

The Canadian decision is the latest development in a much larger problem. Conservatives across the globe are continuing to rally behind a scientifically debunked claim that climate change isn’t happening. In the United States, conservative politicians — none of whom are scientists themselves — discredit and question prominent and reliable climate change researchers. In Germany, right-wing party officials pass out scientifically inaccurate pamphlets at student activist rallies.

Alas, no. Skeptics will tell you again and again that the debate is not that the climate has changed. It has. It’s warmer than it was in 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended. No, the debate is on causation, and the Cult of Climastrology cannot prove, using the Scientific Method or anything other than supposition, that the changes are mostly/solely caused by Mankind. They surely do not act like it in their own lives, right?

The “debate” over climate change is a myth that conservative leaders must cease to perpetuate. Overwhelming scientific consensus affirms that the earth is warming at historic rates. Claims to the contrary are not a valid political opinion — they are an alternate reality that is incompatible with basic fact.

And that’s where we get into their “just shut up and take it” mode. The “how dare you speak!” mode. Wrongthink. They are very unhappy with Free Speech and Free Thought.

Groundbreaking studies on historic atmospheric carbon levels found that over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has never surpassed around 300 parts per million, even in Earth’s warmest periods. However, since 1950, CO2 levels have risen dramatically to over 400 ppm, levels never before reached in observable history.

Which means exactly zero, as the Earth has experienced multiple warm periods during the Holocene period, many warmer than the current Modern Warm Period. Heck, what caused the world to warm, ending the last glacial period? Sure wasn’t fossil fueled vehicles and people eating burgers. What they’re proposing is a supposition. An “uncertain belief.” Not science. Why don’t they try explaining why there were multiple warm periods when CO2 was much lower? “That was then this is now” is not a scientific explanation.

The time to deny humanity’s role in our warming earth is long over, and conservative leaders who continue to perpetuate the myth of a debate are lying to themselves and their constituents. This is different from a debate around which policies provide the best pathway forward. Countries like France, Germany, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. —  with  large populations that continue to subscribe to the anti-climate-change narrative — should put tax dollars to use by discussing action, not by trying to ignore extensive scientific evidence.

Why would we spend money on something that is clearly not a proven scientific reality? If you want to argue that, yes, the climate has changed, it has gotten warmer, we could do with protecting infrastructure and such, sure, OK, I’ll agree. If you want to propose taxing the hell out of people and private entities while taking away their freedom, liberty, and choice, well, nah, you won’t get that agreement. Because that’s what they want. Just look at how they frame this: taking away people’s Free Speech and Thought. And that’s what they’ve been pushing for over 30 years.

When I started pointing out that this was all about pushing Progressive (nice Fascism) (you can call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism, etc) political doctrine around 16 years ago, even Skeptics said I was off base. And every day, month, and year proves me correct.