The House That Zelmo Built

"You have created an unsocial monster
And you're searched for all over the globe
And most believe that things would sure be better
If you'd come down here and tell us what you know." ~ 'Chimaera' - Bad Religion

"...in Greek mythology, a fire-breathing female monster resembling a lion in the forepart, a goat in the middle, and a dragon behind. She devastated Caria and Lycia until she was slain by Bellerophon. In art the Chimera is usually represented as a lion with a goat’s head in the middle of its back and with a tail that ends in a snake’s head. This matches the description found in Hesiod’s Theogony (7th century bc). The word is now used generally to denote a fantastic idea or figment of the imagination." ~ Encyclopaedia Britannica




We have recently borne witness to what happens when science becomes a pseudo-religious doctrine in the form of the climate change controversy. Where religion often begets fanaticism, science has also mirrored its social rival in its influence over the mob mentality of collective thinking.

While Christianity and Islam both share a commonality as Abrahamic religions bent on subjugating its followers into a God-fearing enslavement of ideals, science has also gripped secular humanity into its own vise grip of fear through the apocalyptic propaganda machine known as Climate Change. Led by the likes of Al Gore’s 1992 “faith-friendly” book, Earth in the Balance – Ecology and the Human Spirit, it is assumed that we are to be dissuaded from common sense by being threatened into believing that the world is coming to an imminent and tragic end at the hands of our very own progressive development industrial complex. We are judged by the carbon footprint that we leave behind.

On the surface, the scientific argument makes sense. As mankind evolves and progresses in the world, his technological achievements also evolve and progress, with production and consumption eating away at the ecological environment in which he lives. Pollution is the inevitable result of all of this progress, and its immediate impact on the environment is noticeably evident.

Where this argument falters is in its sudden conclusion that because our short-term impact on the environment is indisputable, this means that our long-term impact on the environment must also be indisputable. But it becomes harder to persuade the average-thinking Joe that scientific predictions of a global environmental meltdown due to industrial progress are valid when meteorologists can’t even predict with absolute certainty what kind of weather that we’re going to have at the end of the week. We have probable certainty that it might snow tomorrow, but nature might very well suddenly decide to rain instead. Such is the precarious nature of making weather predictions.

“But climate is different from weather,” they say. It is then that they look to relatively recent climate patterns over the past century for evidence to support their claims. Where this method falls short is in the general disagreement in what constitutes “global warming trends” and “global cooling trends.” The problem with using this template as the basis for an argument is that the Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years.

There have been at least four known major Ice Ages in recorded geological history. The common sense conclusion that one comes to when faced with this scientific evidence is that, since the Earth has cooled down at least four times over the past 2.4 billion years, then it stands to reason that it has also warmed at least four times during that period as well. So how then was mankind able to influence this warming and cooling cycle when we as a species have only appeared upon the fossil record relatively recently?

There are other scientific theories out there that denote a natural influence upon the global warming and cooling trend that is devoid of any human intervention at all. Milankovitch Theory, which describes the cycle of the Earth’s axial tilt and precession and the eccentricity of its elliptical orbit around the sun over the course of 41,000 years, denotes a natural cycle of global warming and cooling that result in longer and shorter seasons. The Cambrian Explosion of complex animals into the Earth’s fossil record approximately 530 million years ago could have also had a very major impact on the Earth’s ecosystem and its carbon emissions.

These are major events in the carbon and fossil record of the Earth that have no human intervention at all, and yet we are to believe that what is evident to have happened in prehistoric times is also occurring now, but as a result of mankind’s evolution and progress and not some natural device. This is the fallacy that drives the climate change fundamentalism machine of today.

This “flat earth society” mentality of scare tactics by reason of environmental guilt isn’t helped much by recent events involving the hacked e-mails of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This, coupled with the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark and its intent to invoke global socialism upon the economic infrastructure of the free world, implies a grand scheme to indoctrinate a false sense of imminent danger upon an unsuspecting global populace using science as a fear tactic, much akin to religious fundamentalism and its weaponry of God-fearing, used to enact widespread policy and outright crimes against humanity that is seen in many countries throughout the world today.
It is this parallel between science and religion that is most disturbing, because scientists are trusted to remain impartial to agendas, instead relying on inconspicuous data to achieve positive results. What the climate change proponents have instead achieved is a type of scientific dogma meant to manipulate whole countries into adopting the New International Economic Order of the 1970s, which was designed to redistribute the wealth of richer Western nations into the economies of poorer Third World countries via the United Nations.

It is important that we as a common society remain aware and cautious of the cap-and-trade proposals that are currently being considered by President Obama and our Congress, and how they tie in with this global socialism movement, using climate reform as its modus operandi. It is also important that the scientific community re-establishes itself in the wake of political influence and leaves this climate reform junket in the dust where it belongs, so that future generations are not resentful and distrusting of both past and future scientific contributors whose sole intent is to benefit the entirety of mankind and the Earth in which it resides.

Anthropogenic climate change is about as plausible as anthropogenic natural selection. Think about it.

(0) comments