Idealogical Ruse From Libertarian Rabbit Hole

Scurrying to the Rabbit Hole

A young man shot me emails, who is, in my grumpy opinion, enthusiastically misguided and enthralled in the Libertarian ideology; from whence, a projected preferential unfettered free market prevails, private property reigns supreme and an apathetic, no obligation to others are anchored in the platitudes of this, uber individualistic occult . The emails were saturated with philosophical taunts and allegations of liberal political duplicity in the framing of tendentious links of Jabberwocky and accentuated me, me, me selfish mindset.

In this essay, I will address two: and

of a long list of multiple links, which were excoriating the use of a consensus in science—apparently, it’s a thing—in reference to global warming.

Let me be clear on the etiology of this verve by Libertarians to deny empirically buttressed, peer reviewed science of anthropogenic engendered global warming. It sole underpinning is the ideological imbued perception of any government intrusion; “market structuring” if you so please, consumer protection, for example, taint and sully the bastion pillars of free market and property rights, which segues to, if one subscribes to the science that human activity, burning fossil fuels, is causing global warming, then the ethical recourse of corrective action should logically follow—you did it, fix it—but, in doing so, one would have to capitulate to litigative regulations. This, the egregious regulation is utterly a neurotoxin to Libertarians; an assault on their freedom and property. Now, if one were to yield to the obvious, that climate change actually affects everyone, consenting or not, then, according to their very tenets of property rights, the unregulated use of natural resources would be taking liberties of property rights of others, the equivalence of their defined trespassing—we wouldn’t want to condone that inconsideration, would we?

What I am suggesting is, convoluted as it may be, the Libertarians’ denial is a ruse; their disparaging demur  that climatologists are an unscrupulous lot, is a counterfeit challenge to the veracity of global warming science. In reality, it’s a sleight of hand gambit of an unwavering ideological advocacy for free market, which, bless their lil’ hearts, spawns the angst of cognitive dissonance. To protect their fringe ideology in lieu of science tested evidence, they categorically, without reservations deny the legitimacy of climate science. Libertarian’s sophistry clouds cast shadows of chicanery.

To the marrow of my enguard argument, let us first scrutinize the megaphonic personalities of the two above links: James Taylor, an attorney, not the singer, and Micheal Crichton, the renown, successful SciFi writer; really—so, a shyster of the Heartland Institute funded by the petroleum industry ExxonMobile and a Harvard Medical School graduate, who wrote fiction, let me reiterate that specific word: “fiction”, preferably over practicing medicine, and one could/should allude that they are “Practitioners of Embellishment”! Hmmm, two flamboyant personalities gifted in promulgating the fallacious surreal; in simple colloquialism: liars. Too harsh, well, lets review what the shyster, James Taylor, who suggested he’s a bonafide scientist because of completing a couple of science classes, which credential him, in his humble opinion, to the station of peer to practicing climatologist and legitimate critiquer of climate research with the proclamation “I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.” Their must be a lot of scientist bumping in the dark with that low bar. Now, the good Doctor, fiction writer extraodinare, self besmirch his bleached white reputation with the 2004 publication of the fallacious, alternative fact ridden novel, State of Fear by casting calumnies on both climate science and scientists. Now, admittedly, this is a book of fiction, but ole’ Mikey used this book as a springboard to suffuse dubiousness on the peer reviewed science and blemish the integrity of climatologist. One would hope, if you were to be critical of something or someone, you would have a scintilla of appreciation of the topic’s basics; however, Mikey’s nescience of climatology was publicly burped in the book’s climax when the horrible bad, sinister, diabolical environmentalists were going to reck havoc by triggering a seismic tsunami–but–seismic tsunamis are caused by earth tremors, not by global warming. Any climatologist worth his salt knows that, right? A full factual debunking of the book can be found on real “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science” and “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion.”

The IV serum of incertitude puncturing the vein of the public is magnanimously provided by the unscrupulous two faced ExxonMobile petroleum industry to induce a symptomatic dubiousness on climate science, which perpetrate stalling strategies of any mitigating legislation to preclude deleterious harm to the environment; consequently, affording them more time to drill and foul for more oil. The disingenuous canard that science consensus is a fallacy is on public display when, good ole’ Mikey, speaking in petroleum linguistics, exclaims his tendentiousness and exemplifies strategy of duplicity, with:

“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results? The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If its science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Unequivocally, science consensus and the theory of Global Warming exist, in spite of Jimmie’s and Mikey’s petroleum putrid prevarication polemical. Why am I so confident in this asseveration; well, let me count the ways: American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, US Nat Academy of Sciences, International academies with all the accompanying scientific journals/periodicals…and, the double dealing, duplicitous ExxonMobile on their web site clearly intimates:

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

The preponderance of professionals who are actually scientist and do what scientist do, and have a clue, tip the scales of reasoning and without reservations are complicit with the unambiguous science consensus of global warming and the nuts and bolts of its empiricalness.

Now, I realize, no matter what I have written above, will not, sway you an iota, the “Libertarian blighted”, for you are so entrenched down the rabbit hole of your ideology, its figuratively subterrian to Alice’s Wonderland, where a talking tardy rabbit obsessing about time, Caterpillar smoking a hookah waxing philosophically, and a Gryphon defines uglification reside in surrealism, and undoubtedly, you will dismiss flippantly with a gesticulating hand the entirety of science and its peer scrutinizing method, availing the way we explicate the natural world and advance civilization. For, much to your chagrin, the existence of microscopes, cars, and airplanes verify the veracity of the method of science and its practitioners.