Climate

For years, we have sought such answers from the scientific establishment. Scientists, popularly revered as objective and unbiased sages, were consulted for answers to our most pressing questions. How to build the bomb? How to reach the moon? How to understand Earth’s climate?

At first they told us the world was freezing. Hysterical prognosticators of a cold, barren Earth devoid of vegetation in the midst of a new ice age, scients irrationally exaggerated the facts. Yet, we are only too eager to accept the fad of warming à la Gore, a severe anthropogenic curse of irreparable harm. 

Politicians have won elections jeopardizing on the fear of the hoi polloi. Celebrities, with their own massive carbon-footprint lifestyles, dictate how the rest of world might live. Remember the sagacious, yet unperspicacious Sheryl Crow, who advised the world to use only one sheet of toilet paper? 

The United Nations even established a panel of the wisest, most unpolitical scientific minds, commissioning them prepare a tome not only describing the effects of climate change, but also providing practical suggestions by which man might move forward in his necessary adaptation to the changed circumstance he affected. Or, did he? Enter “Climategate,” the “final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming.” 

It seems that the unbiased UN scientists from the University of East Anglia have been purposefully destroying data in order to exaggerate warming trends and to hide flaws in the contemporary climate theory. E-mails have been leaked, which prove purposeful manipulation and suppression of contrary evidence, even doubt to veracity of the warming models. So much for peer review! 

Scientists are no less biased than politicians. Furthermore, modern science has perverted itself, destroying its necessary foundation in a proper philosophy of nature. Obsession with descriptive analysis, empiricism, and what is, rather than what ought to be, has distorted science and the understanding of its purposeful end. Until we recover this, and realize that climate “experts” are quite as interested in propagating self-beneficent theories as anyone else, the sooner we will come to a more holistic understanding of climate and what the future may hold. At the point, we can consider how man should react, if at all, in attempting to interfer in Earth’s own efforts to cope with changing circumstances.