The caviar-devouring limosuine club oligarchists meeting at the Copenhagen conference have dismissed the massive, widespread global warming email controversy as “a distraction”.  They continue to follow “The Consensus” of hack scientists who create environmental models heralding the destruction of our world in order to further their own questionable careers.  It begs the question, which came first – the science of climatology, or the politics?

War fought by politics and consensus results in disasters like Vietnam.  Science determined by politics ends in the Catholic church trying Galileo for heresy for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  Galileo is the father of modern astronomy and physics, and is one of mankind’s first great scientists .  He opposed “The Consensus” of his time.  He was right, of course, but for his opposition he lived the last decade of his life under house arrest.

Science is not done by politics or consensus.  A scientific conclusion is not something you believe in, as proponents of global warming believe in their apocolyptic computer models.  In fact, most of our greatest advances in science involve one or a few scientists taking a radically different view of the world and eventually reshaping our perceptions using the scientific method.  However over the past few years it seems there has been established a politcally contrived environmental scientific “Consensus” that threatens to rival or even outstrip the power of the Catholic church during Galileo’s time.  This email controversy has delineated even more clearly the process by which our modern “Consensus” has established the equivalent of the Church’s Inquisition.  Any scientific disagreement or even objectivity has been repressed and stifled with a zealotry frighteningly similar to the Catholic church during its own time of scientific repression.

Environmentalism has become a sort of secular religion of its own.  However as far as religions go, I think the confused modern secularists looking for meaning in their lives could have chosen a better channel for their repressed spiritual energy.  Environmentalism has transformed itself, with quite a bit of political prodding, into a cynical apocolyptic death cult that sees mankind as the source of all the world’s problems and incapable of creating solutions.  This cult wishes to sublimate the will of the individual to the Greater Good of feel-good environmentalism.  It is also becoming increasingly clear that politicians see this as an avenue to creating a behemoth, byzantine global government, solidifying the political oligarchy’s hold on power indefinitely.  It would be a  government that dramatically redefines the meaning of “too big to fail”.  Supressing the rights of the individual for the needs of the Greater Good should sound suspiciously familiar to anyone who has read anything longer than a Twitter message.

Scientific “Consensus” and “environmental justice” will have us well on our way to one-world communism and a new dark age for humanity if it is not stopped.  The Dark Ages were probably a fun time for the oligarchy.  The Soviet Union was great for the Politburo, while it lasted.  Dark times in which the rights of the individual are supressed are actually appealing to the power hungry.  If Obama could snap his fingers and make Fox News go away, would he?  If the United Nations could contrive a way to hold absolute power over the United States, wouldn’t they?

Valuing the rights of endangered species over the rights of the unborn seems like a good start to me.  Our leaders are talking about cutting ”carbon emissions” by 30% (Europe claims they will slash them 95% by 2050).  Whether or not this means the world of 2050 will be filled with butterflies, rainbows, and an absolutely fantastic number of polar bears, I don’t know.  But I do know that it means dismantling the industry of western civilization and all the advances and benefits that go with it.  Europe is a miserable place - a shadow of what it once was, with wind turbines marching across the once bucolic countryside to the tune of their climate-crazed pan-European government.  Their only aspiration for the future is to halt what their computer-model oracles tell them is mankind’s self-destructive ravashing of the planet.  It is a bleak vision.  America must be the dissenting voice of hope, a voice that reasserts confidence in the individual’s ability to solve the problems he is faced with.

Buy a fuel efficient car to assuage your conscience – great.  But dismantle industry, subvert American autonomy, and shred the constitution – over my dead body.

This is really not a “gotcha” moment by any means. Al Gore can just go out and buy methane credits (which I believe do exist). He’ll never stop eating beef, chicken, ManBearPig, etc.

Exorbitantly wealthy liberal elites never have to behave according to the principles they express publicly– there’s always a company (which probably counts Al Gore among its owners) from whom they can purchase absolution. This is a secular religion, and credits/offsets are the indulgences.

I'm thuper cereal-- these ThuperFreakonomic solutions are too easy on humans!

But perhaps [SuperFreakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's] biggest sin, which is also the central point of the chapter, is pointing out that seemingly insurmountable problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Hence world hunger was largely conquered not by a massive effort at population control, but by the development of new and sturdier strains of wheat and rice. Hence infection and mortality rates in hospitals declined dramatically as doctors began to appreciate the need to wash their hands.