Well, what’s left?
Anyone with a little bit of time can easily dissect most of the anthropocentric global warming hysteria, whether it be their shaky grasp of elementary physical principles, their unsettling demagogy, their ludicrous postulates ( if thus and so happens five or ten times faster than we’ve ever observed it to do, then we’ve got a real problem… so do something!!! yeah whatever…. )
But here’s a real underlying symptom, and it’s bound to show up in other places, even if this crap blows over, and it has to do with what real democracy is, and real science, and the difference, and the relationship between those two, accounting for those differences.
The way democracy is supposed to work, and by this I mean representative democracy, which is what most of us are supposed to have, is that the populace elects leaders who are of the highest possible intellectual, moral, and philosophical development. Nobody really wants ‘one man, one vote’ in the litteral sense, where we get the lowest common denominator or public opinion. No. We want leaders who will put forth a higher standard of understanding and character, which we can rally behind. We vote on who we think will best represent what is best in us.
So even in politics, this is not mob rule, and consensus is to be feared, not embraced. Even so, if the idea of consensus or popular opinion prevails, that’s still not a complete disaster.
For something like true ‘popular’ democracy to work, it presupposes an informed population. It’s almost tautilogical that to make correctly informed decisions, one has to be correctly informed. The more people you expect to include in the body of correct information, the harder it gets. This is the main reason why ‘true’ litteral democracy doesn’t work, and why nobody in their right mind actually wants it. It’s hard enough to keep the relatively small number of elected representatives in the loop, let alone the whole population.
But it seems like some segment of the scientific community wants to not only run science this way, but to then extend that brand of science into the political domain. They figure if you can marshall enough popular opinion in the scientific community that you must be right, and that politcal authority should then follow in the footsteps of this.
But as we’ve seen, even politics is not supposed to work that way, and certainly not science.
Science is not a democracy, in any sense, at all, whatsoever. It makes no difference if 20, 200, 2000, 20 000 scientists agree on something. None. The only thing that makes any difference is who has done the experiment, and who is adequate to interpret the results. If only 3 of those 20 000 are able to do the experiment, and have the background to interpret the results, then the opinions of the other 19 997, are not only worthless, but they shouldn’t even be solicited. It can only lead to confusion. SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. If you don’t have the grounding, YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE.
So, when the global warming movement tries to trot out some poorly conceived models and dubious conclusions, and proclaims that they have a ‘consensus’ behind them, no matter how large this supposed consensus is, you can rightly tell them to piss off. Ask them how many of those people are actually qualified to check the math.
And really, they know it’s shaky science. They must know, because rather than pursue the normal channels of peer review, they’ve elected to ‘take it to the streets’.
It seems that in lieu of real proof, that they will settle for stampeding public opinion.
Even democracy doesn’t work like that, or at least, it’s not supposed to. You’ll critcise the demogoguery of the war on terror and then happily indulge in the same tactics when it comes to global warming. It smacks of fascism, where the great leaders mobilise their street fighting rabble to help them seize power, on the basis of what? Pure bullshit.
If we start to run the world on the basis of consensus, we can only exepct the lowest common denominator. At best.
At worst, it’s really the lowest common denominator of what the rabble rousing demagogues can warm over for public consumption. That sort of shit is no good for politics, or science, or society in general. Do we really want mob rule? Do we really want science by shouting match? Do we really want to finish off any semblance of representative democracy in this world? Are we so eager to surrender any hope of rising above the ape theatre of misinformed
Does anyone seriously think that a factual scientific and political debate is going to be resolved in the right way, by taking it out in to the street? Has that ever happened before? If you actually think this, you need your fucking head examined.
Rather, maybe you should focus your efforts on making sure the system works the way it’s supposed to. When you do, you will find, suprise, suprise, that the people who see to it the system doesn’t work properly, are some of the same ones who now want to take advantage of it.
This is how fascism works, you fucktards; destroy the credibility of the system and then use that as a pretext for assuming unprecidented powers. Do I really need to tell anyone this? Are our memories this short? I realise most people have the attention spans of fruitflies, but the current pitifull state of our governance didn’t just happen, and now you want to ‘fix’ it, by appealing to the public, and building ‘consensus’? You should have fucking fixed it a long time ago! The solution is not some hysterical media animal show.
You really think that this sort of thing is going to result in a clean peacefull green utopia? It will like hell. Once you open that door to the chanting throng, once you’ve aroused that wave of fervour, you’ll have the reign of terror, not planet goretex, and it’ll be followed by much much worse. Some estimates of what would happen under a ‘green populist’ world government, have population crashing by upwards of one half, and that’s assuming that the ‘green vanguard’ can actually steer what they’re trying to unleash, which is debateable.
I would suggest you take a look at what the majority opinion of the public is on a number of issues besides global warming, before you get too invested in ‘saving the earth’ this way. You may find you’re doing just the opposite.