I have my very own global warming attacker

I chipped in a few comments on a blog about global warming and ended up being the target of my very own blog post.  I am copying my initial response to the post below in case it is taken offline. 

=======================================

I'm flattered you think my arguments make me worth attacking. When hyperbole reaches this stage I can tell someone is feeling afraid. 

At this stage I believe if an uninformed but open-minded person reads enough of the threads I have contributed to they will likely go on to seek more information from the broad literature available and not simply accept the global warming dogma, thus my goal will have been partially accomplished. I did not set out to debate this area of science point-by-point, but rather tryied to indicate there is a lot of misinformation out there, much more to be learned in this domain, and not to accept demands for sweeping politico-economic change without challenging the numerous linked premises, assumptions and extrapolations of the global warming crowd. I realize there are closed minds that cannot be reached through an appeal to reason and they are not my target audience - the ones who are open to reason but have not really examined the question are the ones I speak to. That, and the fact it is important not to let wild claims about disasters that involve incredible violations of human rights stand unchallenged. 

My larger goal is to see a better future for humanity, one where the best energy sources available at the time are not restricted by force and intimidation but allowed to compete on a free market against all other energy sources for their ability to help humans improve their environment by altering nature. If we let free people choose which types of energy they wish to use they will overwhelmingly tend to choose those that in their judgement are best for their lives and those of their children. If solar or wind becomes economically viable for large scale energy one day, the free market is the best place for it to be discovered and flourish. In a free society there are no subsidies for any businesses, whether oil or solar, since the state has no proper role intervening in the economy.

In contrast, when governments run around banning this, blocking that, taxing this and subsidizing that, humanity is worse off because valuable information is distorted and destroyed and useful economic activity and tests are prevented. The principles of freedom, individual rights and limited government are what brought humanity out of pre-enlightenment, pre-industrial times and have improved human life more than in all of history combined. I write to delay and prevent those people whose stated and implicit goals and philosophy stand opposed to rights and freedom from taking total control of the culture and returning us to pre-industrial times.

"Noble lie" is too kind to climate alarmists

In an article published in The Epoch Times, Tom Harris builds his discussion around the term "noble lie" attributed to Plato: "He believed that most people lacked the intelligence to behave in ways that are in their own and society’s best interest and so lies should be created to keep the public happy and under control. False propaganda to enhance public welfare is completely acceptable, Plato argued."

The approach Tom Harris chose in this article actually is an unearned kindness to the acolytes of the climate disaster faith. The subtitle of the article is "doing the right things for the wrong reasons" but in this case the WRONG things are being done for "NO REASON".  For there to be a reason means that a rational process based on the observed facts of reality has been followed to arrive at non-contradictory conclusions.  This is the philosophy of Aristotle instead of the noble lies of Plato. Plato identified the major categories and questions in philosophy but had incorrect answers that laid the foundation for societies based on mysticism and religion. 

Aristotle laid the foundation for societies based on human reason and reality, of which there have only been two so far: the few hundred years following Aristotle and the enlightenment. The beginning of the destruction of the enlightenment came soon afterwards with the advent of Immanuel Kant and his successors, who denied the efficacy of reason, the validity of the senses and the existence of objective reality.  It is actually Kant's ideology that has provided the ammunition for the environmentalist movement. 

Consider each of the primary branches of Kant's philosophy. In Kant's metaphysics nature is something that exists outside of man and has some inherent value in man's absence (as if man does not represent the most highly evolved aspect of nature). In Kant's epistemology we cannot know anything for certain and so must not make decisions that may affect the future of the non-human environment (the precautionary principle). In Kant's ethics human life is considered as no more, and often less important than animal and plant life and even inanimate rocks and water (sacrifice of human values is the proper morality). In Kant's politics the population can be sacrificed for whatever non-human non-value may be arbitrarily identified, such as a supposedly static climate (something that in non-existent and would not be a valid reference point if it did).

The "noble lying" that Tom Harris refers to is not just a slippery slope but is far worse - it is the deliberate denial of reality to accomplish the immoral goal of achieving political power over the lives of others.  There is not a single noble aspect to it. Using the word noble gives it the appearance of having some positive aspect mixed with the negative, but in truth it represents not only a lie but an attempt to deny the existence of lying - destroying the very definition of the word "lie" in the same way and for the same reasons as enemies of reason and freedom use anti-concepts like "state capitalism" and "social justice" in an attempt to destroy the meaning of the words capitalism and justice.  

Tom, you have been too generous in criticizing the ideology of the warmists.  People who can advocate for policies that are clearly destructive of human values in the face of insufficient, to say nothing of demonstrably false scientific facts, deserve nothing but criticism of the most severe type. Lending them any aspect of the word "noble" does an injustice to the meaning of the word.

Why do so many politicians support the global warming scare?

This is a short letter written to Canadian MPs and Senators, asking them an apparently simple question.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As you can see in this article, literally billions of dollars are being wasted in Canada on trying "to stop climate change" even though the science no longer supports the scare. Why do almost all Senators support this incredible waste of our scarce resources?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My reply to the questioner was as follows.

The very end of the article contains the answer to the question. The answer can be found in the philosophy that dominates the culture. The philosophy of a culture is set by its intellectuals in areas such as science, education, literature and politics. For decades now the dominant philosophy has been that of Emmanuel Kant, who created the philosophical system of nihilism - the denial that principles exist, that knowledge can be certain, that there is a right and wrong and that reason is useful in dealing with the world.

Thus, in science we see claims that there are infinite parallel universes in which anything and everything happens and nothing is certain, even measurements; in literature we see novels about depravity and nothingness in a book without heroes, clear themes or plots (Seinfeldian literature); in education we see fragmented curricula without integration and courses about minutiae producing graduates unable to think in terms of essential concepts, integrate broad concepts, identify truth; and in politics we see the rule or pragmatism, where no principles tie together different laws and the rule of whatever seems to work for the moment is dominant (see Obama's, McGuinty's, etc. policies).

An aspect of of Kant's philosophy is egalitarianism, which sees everything as equal, without regard for principles such as validity, correctness, truth, or value to human life.  The environmental movement is based on the elevation of non-life above life, the valuing of nothing instead of something, and the consequent destruction of the values necessary for human life.

Since the enemy's power is based on ideology and morality, no matter how wrong or corrupt, and people are told that the ideas are moral, people will follow the ideology until death, in defiance of facts, unless they are presented with a better ideology and morality.  Facts, to an egalitarian, do not exist or can be re-defined into the opposite of their true meaning.  To this mentality, terminology is fluid, definitions are subjective, anything can be rationalized away. Facts alone cannot combat an entire morality that is consistently applied in all disciplines, especially now that a generation or two have been raised in an education system where this morality is thoroughly entrenched and almost unchallenged. People are rarely conscious of their moral foundations and so they are easy victims of those who profess to offer strong moral beliefs, especially when shrouded in the credibility of science.  

Tom, the battle is truly one of entire belief systems.  To win decisively and not simply see the battle shift to a slightly different terrain (such as the shift from pollution to species extinction to ozone depletion to global warming), we must attack the root philosophy with the power of moral certainty. The philosophy of Ayn Rand, based on Aristotle's work and the knowledge that has come since the enlightenment and industrial revolution, known as Objectivism, offers all the intellectual and moral tools needed to combat nihilism and I am an avid reader in this field. As a fellow opponent of environmentalism, I encourage you to do likewise.

How philosophy leads to position statements

Why are there so many contradictions between positions of the same political party and how can one arrive at positions highly consistent and very unique among the parties?  By starting with high level philosophical ideas and applying them to instances that are relevant.  

I view all the dominant political parties as leftist with only small shades of difference.  For example, facing massive deficits and debt, in the 2011 Ontario election the PC's said they would spend every dime the Liberals were spending, but would cut spending on half the budget items by 2%.  In other words, they would only spend 99% as much!  No wonder they were not elected despite massive abuses by the governing Liberal party.  In a recent TV interview, PC candidate Young was asked by Brian Lilley how his position on education was different from the Liberals and he said he would keep things just as they are, with two government controlled systems. The Liberals are left, the NDP and Greens further left and the PC's agree with almost everything the Liberals are spending money on.  Not much to choose from!

In contrast, the Freedom Party positions are clear and philosophically consistent. For example, the principle that government has no moral role interfering in citizens' freedom to make economic decisions leads clearly to positions such as:

• an end to all business subsidies, tax incentives, and economic programs, especially the insane Micro-Fit program
• restoring a free and competitive market for energy and ending the Ontario Hydro monopoly, leading to lower energy prices
• restoring a free market in health care, leading to a more accessible, lower cost and better product as is the care in every industry that is even relatively free to innovate and compete
• ending the LCBO and Beer Store monopolies and allowing free competition in the alcohol industry
• a large reduction in government spending and quick end to the deficit and increase of provincial debt
• a large reduction in taxation with the eventual goal of repealing Ontario's income tax.

To take a slightly different angle, focusing on problem areas politicians always talk about, the principle that government's moral role is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to violate them, leads to policies such as:

• an end to interference in employment contracts such as minimum wage law (the problems of unemployment)
• an end to the prohibition on low cost housing due to massive building code laws (the problems of homelessness and poverty)
• freedom to contract for spousal or partner benefits as individuals see fit (the problem of same-sex marriage)
• ending all hiring quotas, correctly identifying them as racist (the problems of racism, sexism, ageism etc.)
• establishing full property rights for aboriginal people and an eventual end to all law and policy based on race (the problems of aboriginals and their communities).

Imagine how productive and happy a society could be if its government acted as a strong protector of individual rights and did not interfere in individual actions unless they represent a physical danger to others.  Such a society would be the envy of the world and a model to emulate.  In the 19th century, the U.S. and Canada approached this type of society but the principles of freedom were neither explicit enough nor were there enough defenders of these principles.  Instead, our societies have come to be dominated by the morality espoused by German philosophers such as Kant, Hegel and Marx.  While technological progress has continued because it often operates faster than government can follow, social and political progress has reversed and stagnated in many ways.