Proof of God

December 1, 2009 at 4:01 pm (Politics) (, , , , , )

In the news the other day, Pat Buchanan announced that, since there’s no actual proof of climate change, and yet we’re talking about remaking our entire infrastructure and economy based on its presumed existence, we should also transform our country into a theocracy despite there being no known proof of the existence of God.

That’s absolutely ridic – wait a second.  I’m getting an update.

Uhm… I’m sorry, it seems I got that totally mixed up.  The only part of that statement which was accurate was that Pat Buchanan was actually there when the stupid statement that follows was made.  And he didn’t make it (which, honestly… pains me.)

In response to the statement that there’s no known proof that climate change is being caused by mankind, by Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift:

“There’s no known proof of the existence of God either!  How much proof do you need, Pat?”

Let me get this straight.  You’re equating the fact that people believe in God based on pure faith, with no known proof, with the fact that people are insisting we need to completely overhaul the infrastructure of the world and its economy because of anthropogenic climate change?

Do you realize that you’re also stating that AGW is an issue of faith, not of proof?  Because that’s basically what you’re saying.

You see… we aren’t a theocracy.  We don’t allow what is perceived as God’s word to dictate how we run our economy.  If we did, we would ban lobster fishing, and allow people to capture Mexicans and Canadians as slave labor.  We would also make homosexuality punishable by death.  Because that, apparently, is God’s law, and if we disobey we’re in for major punishments.  We would be making those decisions based purely on faith, because we believe that the invisible man in the sky is telling us that we should.

Instead, because we aren’t a theocracy, we make our laws based (at least somewhat) based on things we do have proof of, or believe for reasons beyond the “invisible man in the sky” argument.  Because there’s no reason to believe that homosexuality is actually equivalent to murder, we don’t execute gays.  Because there’s no reason to believe that we have a divine mandate to conquer the world, we don’t legalize taking foreign nationals as slaves.  Because we know that shellfish actually can be eaten safely, we don’t make them illegal to harvest and consume.

Similarly, because we are supposed to be making laws based on common sense and scientific evidence, rather than proof, we don’t make laws mandating that we completely overhaul our economy based on what are, basically, faith-based claims that our current economy is causing the Earth to warm to unsafe levels.

“But hey!”  You might be saying.  “We *do* have scientific evidence!”

And yet… we also have evidence (not scientific, but even better – actual documentation) that the “scientific evidence” was developed using potentially inaccurate numbers, and with a concerted effort to conceal the raw data and silence dissenters.  You don’t believe it?  They’ve got emails from the CRU – the go-to people for climate change information – stating that journals that allowed articles dissenting with the majority view of climate change should be “reviewed” as to whether or not they’re legitimate journals.

We’ve got statements that the researchers would rather dump their raw data than have it made available to people outside their circle.

We’ve got statements that it’s a “travesty” that their models can’t explain the current temperature trends.

We’ve got statements that data needs to be edited in order to get the results they’re publicizing.

Now – I’m in a field that does some public reporting.  And yes, adjustments do sometimes have to be made in order to accurately portray the information.  However, we can explain Every.  Single.  Adjustment.  If we couldn’t, we could lose our jobs, or even end up in prison.  We can’t just arbitrarily say “these numbers look too low – add arbitrary number X to make it fit the trend.”  If we try doing that, we get screamed at from every level of the process, and the media would be having a field day with us.

But this?  Clear evidence and obvious statements that the scientists who’ve been using millions of dollars to fund their research, who are proposing that we make changes that could have billions or even trillions of dollars of economic impact?  We have clear evidence and unambiguous statements that call all of their information into question.

And the mainstream media is being very, very quiet about it.  Why?  Because they’ve drunk the Kool-aid.  After all – there’s no known proof of God, but plenty of people believe in him.  How’s this any difference?

Maybe because we’re actually moving away from the point of considering theocratic dictatorships a legitimate government.  You’d think they’d get with the 21st Century.


1 Comment

  1. An Early Rant « Dinner Table Taboos said,

    […] I’ll admit, I’m a little paranoid about my governing officials.  I tend to believe that, if you go ahead and give them a way to punish dissenters and silence opposition, eventually some of them are going to think to go ahead and use it.  Consider, if you will, the fact that the EPA was given the power to basically pass law without having to go through that pesky legislation process, by declaring a substance hazardous to human health.  Now, they’ve done exactly that with CO2 – giving them carte blanche to ‘regulate’ a substance that we’ve just discovered poses an overblown threat at best, thanks to a few hack… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: