Dan Page, a newspaper editor from a state whose economy is unique in that it's "based on carbon-based energy," is embarking on a bold intellectual adventure:
I want to be better prepared to sort out the facts about climate change from the emotion, hysteria and media noise.In practical terms, this involves listening rapturously to what S. Fred Singer has to say, and then agreeing with it. This delicate philosophical operation is known in denialist circles as Challenging One's Beliefs, and is usually consecrated to the memory of Science's Martyrs (e.g., Galileo, Gobineau, and William E. Dannemeyer).
If you're not impressed by Page's dedication to completing the project of the Enlightenment, perhaps you'll be swayed by "Henry E. Payne III, president of the Scott Depot-based manufacturer of high-technology silicon power controls," who "believes many West Virginians would benefit from hearing Singer, who doesn't mind offering opinions that give discomfort to those who believe the sky is falling because human beings are burning fossil fuels."
Or maybe you'll heed the warnings of Thomas Sowell and Cal Thomas, whose assessment of global warming brings them as close to agreement as two fiercely independent columnists for Townhall.com are likely to get. Here's Cal Thomas on Al Gore's bloodthirsty army of climate jihadists:
There are at least two characteristics all fundamentalists share. One is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all. The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives, overriding the majority's will."Or as Thomas put it in an earlier, funnier column:
That great theological nag named Paul...writes of those who ignore God's requirements for humankind: "Although they know God's righteous decrees that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)Let's get back to Page, though. When assessing climate change, I think we can all agree that the important thing is to remain objective. Or failing that, pleasantly befuddled:
Does that not fit our present state of mind and cultural condition? Don't liberal activists and their judicial enablers regularly tell us that to affirm an immutable standard, especially if it comes from God, violates church-state separation?
I am not a scientist or climatologist. I don't fully understand how or why others have embraced the views Al Gore and his media accomplices are promoting.You may think that Page lowers himself by implying that AGW is something Gore dreamed up in his million-dollar sweat lodge while high on ayahuasca. But you can rest assured that his gutter commands a wide view of the stars:
I also tend not to believe everything our politicians tell us, especially those who are enamored with the latest popular movement that vilifies our country and risks our prosperity.Very wise, too. It's far better to be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong ones. And it'd be a tragedy if the fashionable dictates of "science" prevented us from expressing our love for our country by extracting its coal, polluting its air, and standing implacably in the way of its progress.
(Illustration at top: "Blind Man's Bluff" by Helen Nehill.)