A Rose By Any Other Name

With apologies to Shakespeare, I have to wonder if, in today's political arena, a rose by any other name is still a rose. It seems that everyone in politics is hiring people to tell them how to 'spin' things, and doing public opinion polls to find out the most acceptable terms to use.

Let's just take the concept of global warming, for instance. That term is out, and has been for a couple of months. There was just too much negative response attached to it, even though Al Gore said the debate on it was over. (How can debate on anything ever be over?)

Next it was called climate change. Who can argue with that? Climate does change, but the term, as used by liberals, implies and presumes that the changes are caused by people, and what we do. Science shows that less than 1% of any possible problems are caused by the actions of people living on the planet. That is not to say there isn't a climate change, just that we aren't causing it or having a big impact on it.

"Just one recent example came from the United-Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC summary report was approved by attending environmental scientists, many of whom said there was no long-term global warming -- which indeed much data corroborate -- that current temperature fluctuations are within historical norms and that there is no concrete evidence of mankind's activity affecting global climate -- i.e. no global warming. Quite a jump from the "most scientists believe the sky is falling" heard every day.

When the report was published, numerous pages had been deliberately tampered with. All dissenting views and evidence been systematically removed giving the impression that scientists were in agreement that global warming was upon us. The dissenting scientists were furious at the blatant unscientific fraud and their protest erupted into the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal." John Loeffler, Colorado Christian News, Nov. 1996

This experience was repeated in last fall's conference in New York, in a slightly different way. Over 400 scientists who protest that 'global warming' is not the danger insisted on by the Al Gore contingent met for a conference. It was covered by two journalists, one from the Wall Street Journal, and the other Glenn Beck, who says he isn't a journalist, really. Where was the main stream media? Absent without calling in.

We're hearing a lot more about 'green' and a lot less about 'environmentally friendly' these days. Personally, I'm already sick of the term green and it totally makes me want to go run my gas powered chainsaw through the forest and then get in my SUV and drive across the country.

Now we're being told that carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out, and which trees and other plants need to survive, is a toxic substance. It's even been proposed that fat people breath out more, so they should be taxed. And does anyone really understand what cap and trade is? (For a good explanation, see this article. Note the bottom line - money!) Is anyone thinking about this?

When we take a look at these concepts, whatever language they use, to find the basis in science, we find what we used to call weasel words. "Most scientists believe," for instance, instead of a fact. When did people believing something make it a fact? Hundreds of millions in this country believe in God, and yet no one who doesn't will accept his existence as a fact based on that.

Evidence opposed to what the liberal government wishes us to think is ignored. Thank goodness for Fox news, or I'd be depending on internet blogs for a few meager facts about almost everything. Or, Heaven forbid, falling for the liberal line. So much of it sounds reasonable, and some of it is. However, the tactics are growing more and more suspect, as time goes by.

If one thinks that consensus of belief is reason enough to push on, perhaps we are doomed. Those very people who want to "save the environment," may be doing the entirely wrong things, but no one is looking at the facts of the case to find out.

I absolutely believe in preserving the rainforest (as well as the desert, the tundra, and every other geographic setting), doing our best to keep animals from going extinct, when it's possible, and being good stewards of the earth. That's our commandment from God. What I don't believe in is getting in a panic over things.

Species die out. They did before humans came along, and they will after we've met our own demise. Geography changes. Where we camp in mountain forests now, it used to be the bottom of salty oceans, and you can still find tiny seashells and fossils. At another time it was swampy. Change happens. Human beings do what they can to resist it, whether it's for good or ill.

If you want to save a species, let's talk about saving that species. If you want to improve air quality, then let's talk about that. Let's work together to see what, in the rational world is possible. Let's not make sweeping legislation that denies human beings their lives. Let's not fix things that aren't broken, or that won't matter. Let's reason together, not panic. Let's use honest, open language that says what it means. For Heaven's sake, let's call a spade a spade, and not an environmental weapon.