from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
Despite the occasional protestations to the contrary, many so called conservatives subconsciously utilise the Marxist dialectic in their thinking and writing. They can’t help themselves. Perhaps they do not realise that, in the same way as a minnow spawn, born and raised in foetid water does not realise that there could be something else outside a pond. A minnow is occasionally pulled out of that muddy water by a rational angler. But then it is too late, and I wonder whether that minnow dies regretting for a split second not evolving into something smarter, or failing that, inedible. Most of our intellectuals have yet to face the reality of the rational world; and I suspect that as with a minnow, the realisation will come too late.
That intellectual laziness leads to adopting the Left’s intellectual framework, semantic and vocabulary. There is probably not a field of human endeavour and knowledge not denigrated and demeaned by the Left’s deliberate twisting of meaning of ordinary words and expressions. For example, for some reason now even the rational people gave in and refer to AGW ( Anthropogenic Global Warming) as a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
This happened when some people, not believing the AGW propaganda, would say they do not believe that people can cause global warming. The warmists responded by referring to that Dr Lorenz’s butterfly somewhere in Amazonian forests* as a proof of all the sceptics’ ignorance and bias.
I recall a story, possibly apocryphal, but likely not, about a dissertation work at one of the solid technical tertiary institutions in pre-war Czechoslovakia. The engineering candidate successfully defended his work on the effect of a mosquito landing on a steel bridge. Nobody would dispute that placing a Sherman tank on one of the girders would create stress upon the material, which can be precisely calculated. Engineers spend entire lives doing this. Obviously, a mosquito has a mass and no matter is absolutely rigid. With a mosquito one simply has to deal with more decimal places to find how little that bridge will twist and bend. It has to, notwithstanding the practical difficulties in measuring it and an absolute futility of doing so.
The work, despite the tongue in cheek theme, obviously had a practical application – a simple question of decimal places – 8-68 perhaps, but nobody possessing a modicum of common sense would worry about one, twenty or thousand of tiny insects.
However, the common sense is something the benighted victims of the Australian educational system may have heard of, but dismissed in favour of the instant wikipedia wisdom. Thus the enemies of common sense and dishonest dissemblers raised hue and cry about one of the many points the logical, scientific sceptics make i.e. that people and their activities could not be possibly responsible for any significant global, i.e. whole earth, not just the Melbourne CBD, warming. Let’s leave aside the undeniable fact that the global temperatures have not raised for more than sixteen years now, despite of the increasing CO2 emissions from China.
There may be some who, either out of ignorance or out of sheer despair over warmists’ fallacies, would claim that people’s behaviour has absolutely no effect on the environment. It is wrong; obviously it has, but the serious question ought to be, like in that bridge story, are we a tank or a mosquito? At the worst, we are a mosquito, and a reasonably well designed and built bridge can handle a tank or two. The Earth can handle humans, it is just that humans can’t handle themselves.
The sceptics should not give in to the childish arguments of charlatans. When the anti-carbon dioxide mafia substituted the Anthropogenic Global Warming by the climate change, they showed the flimsiness of the original myth. Perhaps in the future they will start talking about the catastrophic climate change.
We should not play on their bent field, under their flexible rules, and most importantly we should not let them to announce the result. Dismissing their vocabulary with the contempt it deserves and using the time-honoured one would be a good start.
If not – let’s welcome tomorrow’s anthropogenic sunrise.
*/ If indeed, according to the chaos theory, a butterly flapping its wings can cause a tornado in Texas, what do all those birds do to the climate? Forget carbon dioxide – shoot, sorry, poison (the preferred green method), all of them.