Because We Say So -- The “Science” Of Majority Proclamations
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While attending an “international” symposium at the University of Nevada’s Reno campus, a keynote and world renowned scientist remarked that he had been watching a local news account and that the weatherman for that channel had said he didn’t believe in the theory of global warming. “He should be fired!” the scientist proclaimed. Those who believe that science should be based on lining up those who agree with the theory don’t like having to debate or actually have indisputable proof for their science of man-made global warming.
Those who aren’t willing to fall into line, whether in Reno or in Washington, D.C. are vilified and challenged for not being worthy. Such is the fate of U.S. Senator Inhofe who is being questioned for his position on why the U.S. Senate shouldn’t follow suit with the U.S. House in passing a massive tax scheme intended on destroying the fuel for our country’s economic well-being. Notice how the “news” gleefully reports on the way Senator Inhofe’s fellow-Republicans are abandoning the ship of principle (as if that has never happened before). The Senator’s constituents and others who would be harmed through the government-imposed energy hike need to respond in support of his actions, letting him know that he isn’t alone in recognizing the hoax.
Voters also need to remember those who are so intent on expanding government’s intrusion into our pockets, using the man-made theory of man-made global warming as the excuse to enhance the socialistic goals of a sputtering U.S. economy. Taking this point of view naturally will put me into the category of a flat-earther, perhaps even a “wing-nut”… name-calling and aspersion seems to be a better approach than producing the indisputable proof that the theory is scientifically valid. Those who questioned the flat earth idea once had to prove by action that their belief was fact. Those who considered gravity a scientific truth didn’t have to worry that sometimes things didn’t fall up.
I guess the “change” we’re supposed to blindly accept from the last election is that facts can now be established by having more votes… How does evidence to the contrary fit into this reality?
While attending an “international” symposium at the University of Nevada’s Reno campus, a keynote and world renowned scientist remarked that he had been watching a local news account and that the weatherman for that channel had said he didn’t believe in the theory of global warming. “He should be fired!” the scientist proclaimed. Those who believe that science should be based on lining up those who agree with the theory don’t like having to debate or actually have indisputable proof for their science of man-made global warming.
Those who aren’t willing to fall into line, whether in Reno or in Washington, D.C. are vilified and challenged for not being worthy. Such is the fate of U.S. Senator Inhofe who is being questioned for his position on why the U.S. Senate shouldn’t follow suit with the U.S. House in passing a massive tax scheme intended on destroying the fuel for our country’s economic well-being. Notice how the “news” gleefully reports on the way Senator Inhofe’s fellow-Republicans are abandoning the ship of principle (as if that has never happened before). The Senator’s constituents and others who would be harmed through the government-imposed energy hike need to respond in support of his actions, letting him know that he isn’t alone in recognizing the hoax.
Voters also need to remember those who are so intent on expanding government’s intrusion into our pockets, using the man-made theory of man-made global warming as the excuse to enhance the socialistic goals of a sputtering U.S. economy. Taking this point of view naturally will put me into the category of a flat-earther, perhaps even a “wing-nut”… name-calling and aspersion seems to be a better approach than producing the indisputable proof that the theory is scientifically valid. Those who questioned the flat earth idea once had to prove by action that their belief was fact. Those who considered gravity a scientific truth didn’t have to worry that sometimes things didn’t fall up.
I guess the “change” we’re supposed to blindly accept from the last election is that facts can now be established by having more votes… How does evidence to the contrary fit into this reality?
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/28/2009 5:12 AM 
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: U.S. Senate Global Warming Climate Change
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: U.S. Senate Global Warming Climate Change
Comments