Climate Change or Liberty: Which Will You Deny?

Recently I have been taking a course online. The title is “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.” The shortened title is “Denial 101x.” I took the course in the hope that it would present more of the hard science that supposedly bolsters the claims for man-made climate change. The first class was not encouraging. Heavy on jargon. Heavy on using soft science BS to paint people who disagree as ignorant, stupid, biased, selfish, or crazy. 

At least they haven’t used the word “evil.” Yet. At the same time, there is zero allowance that anyone could possibly disagree with their position simply because the case hasn’t been properly demonstrated. Nor is there any acknowledgement, thus far, of the things that those advocating climate science have done, and continue to do, to damage their own credibility. Bias, it seems, exists only in their opponents. I plan on trying to stick around through the full course, hoping that it will get better. If not, I’ll find a better use for my time. If I want to be insulted, I can always turn to Facebook.

One thing in the first class did seriously catch my attention, though. It was a small statement, repeated a few times. It would have been easy to overlook if you were just skimming the material. According to the materials, there are “no free market solutions” to man-made climate change.

It may not sound like a lot there. One thing that is covered, accurately in the first part of the course is that acceptance of a proposition can vary a lot depending on how you phrase it. The statement above is phrased as a negative, for example, indicating what is not possible (according to the course sources). Allow me to rephrase as a positive:

“People must be forced to accept changes to deal with man-made climate change.”

If that sounds like a stretch, then consider the terms. A “free market” is one where allow of the transactions between people, agencies, governments, etc., are voluntary. That doesn’t mean that there might not be serious consequences for doing business. It just means that both sides have right of refusal. That’s a concept that’s taken a serious beating in the last few decades, but it’s still the only one I know of that gives equal power to the buyer and seller. And since it’s voluntary, no matter how bad it might seem to outsiders, both parties still feel they have more to gain than to lose by going ahead. Not always “win-win,” but as close as you’re going to find in this life.

So, if “free market” transactions are voluntary, then by definition any pursuit without a free market solution must rely on force. Lots of force. The kind of force needed to separate literally billions of people from the fruits of their labor indefinitely, perhaps forever. People are the problem, you see. It says so right in the name: “Man-made global climate change.” And since people are the problem, a forced solution must be applied as long as there are people. 

If this sounds hard to believe, it shouldn’t, not to anyone paying attention. Government force has been used for all kinds of “altruistic” endeavors for as long as I can remember. The war on poverty. The war on drugs. Countless programs to “improve” education. Most recently, the “Affordable” Care Act, which is neither affordable, nor seems to care. Always there are repeated statements that the private sector can’t do it. Government must step in, and generally with the same results: A huge failure at many times the cost of private action, bureaucratic inefficiency, poor to non-existent accountability, and widespread corruption.

I’m still waiting for some good, hard science explanations that will convince me one way or the other how much people are, or are not, affecting the climate. I still haven’t heard a single good answer to the question “What is the climate supposed to be?” Kind of hard to fix it if you don’t know that, wouldn’t you think? But this much I do know. If the only way they can come up with to “fix” the problem is through global tyranny (and there are already signs of it brewing), then count me out. I was born a free man, and I intend to do everything I can to die the same way, whether in freezing cold, sweltering heat, or epic hurricane. 

I’ve often heard it said by proponents of man-made climate change that we can’t afford to wait. That, if true, the stakes are just too high to take the risk. I understand the sentiment. I feel exactly that way about freedom.

The Bottom of the “Ninth” (Commandment, That Is)

Last Friday I heard about an interesting story from the world of theater. Phelim McAleer has written a play about the shooting of Michael Brown and, with a week to go until the debut, the actors are walking out. The issue causing their complaint is integrity. The play appears to have more than they can bear. (Jack Nicholson, check your phone messages. Some people “can’t handle the truth.”)

Ferguson: The Play uses a technique called “verbatim theater.” The script is based solely on the testimony received by the grand jury. What is written is what was actually said in the court room as the grand jury decided whether or not it was proper to bring an indictment against the accused officer, a vital step in maintaining due process in our courts. The audience is intended to see and hear what the grand jury heard, to be exposed to what was really known and true. And therein lies the problem, at least for some of the actors.

The truth doesn’t match the narrative. It doesn’t match the media accounts. It doesn’t match the screaming protesters, the race warriors, the grievance mongers. The truth in uncomfortable for many, so uncomfortable that several actors have walked out completely. Others are lobbying for changes in the script that will remove some of the positive light the testimony shines on the officer. As one of the actors discussed, the truth is “subjective.” As opposed to the will of the mob.

The idea of “subjective” truth has been a significant force in liberal philosophy for some time now. Far from building up any form of cohesion or peace in society, I think it has contributed to a terrible decline. A slide in standards of integrity, honesty. A lack of trust. A refusal to even try to communicate. After all, if “your” truth is different than “my” truth, then agreement is impossible on the matter, and engagement a useless exercise. 

It’s been a terrible slide, and now we approach a horrible bottom. We saw it in the Michael Brown case. We saw it in the Trayvon Martin case, in the Duke Lacrosse “Rape” case. “Truth” for many is determined before any investigation of the matter, much less a trial. And even when the facts are known, people still cling to their own “truth,” unwilling or unable to learn, to accept what is, unless it agrees with their own view. For if “truth” is subjective, then so is “false.” 

The officer in Ferguson became a public pariah, the object of scorn and harassment. It’s a darn lousy payback for putting your neck on the line to do a necessary job. About the only positive thing for him was that, despite calls from the mob, the grand jury did its job. They took the testimony. And under oath, the witnesses did their jobs. They gave the facts. Not the media spin, not the hearsay. They told what they saw and what they heard. I have to wonder if it will be like that next time. 

The ninth commandment of the Bible states “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Many will opine that it is also a command for honesty in all that you do (an interpretation I agree with). But in its purest form, the command is very simple. Or it should be. And yet, what will happen as more and more people embrace the idea that “truth is subjective,” that their reality is fine, if others disagree, so what? What happens to just, for any of us, as “true” and “false” become fluid, subject to the whims of whoever is speaking? It’s happened in our schools. It’s happened in our courts, in the way that judges interpret the laws that we live by. And if it happens in our testimony, in how we determine guilt and innocence?

Truth and justice are inseparable. There is nothing subjective about that. As one falls, so does the other, dragging us all to the bottom with it.