The Ugly BS of Climate Change and the Beauty of Philosophy
As Wittgenstein pointed out: it might be disagreeable to say: “This is nonsense (Unsinn)” but this is the right thing to do
The Ugly BS of Climate Change and the Beauty of Philosophy
In the series: Big Little Lies there’s an episode in which a nine-year old child has an anxiety attack and passes out in a closet due to her fear of “climate change”. Undoubtedly, there are countless children and teenagers all over the world who feel the same way and who have an equally drastic reaction to this all-pervading BS. And we know that there are countless young people who believe this nonsense because they glue themselves to the road or perpetrate other, even more heinous crimes as a form of protest. “Climate change BS” isn’t merely an extremely ugly form of BS, it’s a threat to our society, culture and existence.
Much has been written about BS but a simple, tentative, definition could be: “talking or writing about something one doesn’t know much about or isn’t sure about as if one were certain”. In German one ought to switch to conjunctive if one is unsure about something; that makes clear that what one says is “unreal”. In English the difference isn’t always as crystal clear. This isn’t merely a fault of language but has much to do with our lively imaginations (about which Pascal wrote much), our weakness of character (we tend to arrogance, vanity, conformity or complacency), and the fact that we’re social animals (who often talk for the sake of talking and rarely have time to “fact check”).
The reason why “climate change” is so all-pervasive is due to the phenomenon commonly referred to as “capture”. Over a long period of time all the scientists who either disagreed with the “climate change” nonsense or were especially vocal in their disagreement have been discarded by the system. Only those who go along with the “climate change” nonsense get funding or promotion. Those who disagree but stay silent are quietly tolerated but it isn’t their voices (the silent majority) which are heard. This leads to the false impression that there is “consensus” on the question of “climate change” when there is not. More importantly: there can NEVER be consensus. That is not the way science works nor is it the way it can work.
Science is perfectly simply: somebody enunciates a theory and then seeks evidence to support it or the other way around: they find evidence for something and develop a theory based on that. Either which way: science involves ideas and evidence (and very often experimentation).
There is no experiment which can be conducted to prove the “climate change” hypothesis one way or the other. And all the serious evidence points to the “climate change” hypothesis being wrong: The Middle Ages experienced a period of warmth greater than that of today, in the 1930s there was a period of warmth greater than the 1990s, CO2 is the consequence of warmth, not its cause etc. etc. This is all one needs to know. If there are changes of temperatures they tend to be linked to the activity of the sun and have little or nothing whatsoever to do with human activity on earth. Thus, logically, all the billions spent (wasted) on “stopping climate change” is sheer insanity.
What, therefore, is the agenda? Why is this insanity being thrust down our throats? Why have so many died in Australia, California and Hawaii in arson attacks perpetrated to persuade the masses that “climate change” is actually happening?
The answer lies in the need of the Globalists to find a common cause. As I pointed out in a previous letter:
“The Club of Rome is advancing the agenda of Thomas Malthus who argued that population was held within resource limits by two types of checks: 1) positive ones, which raised the death rate, and 2) preventative ones, which lowered the birth rate. The positive checks included hunger, disease and war; the preventative checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, homosexuality, postponement of marriage, and celibacy.”
“Their vision, as stated in their 1991 publication, ‘The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome,’ reads ‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.’”[1]
What needs to be done?
The most important step that needs to be done is to apply the beauty of philosophy. As Wittgenstein pointed out: it might be disagreeable to say: “This is nonsense (Unsinn)” but this is the right thing to do.
[1] https://altamontenterprise.com/09252019/elitists-have-created-myth-climate-change-eliminate-national-sovereignty