Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Honestly?

Sometimes it's all right to lie, as long as the cause is truly just, and it is only a temporary fib. It reminds me of the figures that were given around Christmastime in 1989 when it was reputed there was an all-out attack on the citizens of Romania by their Stalinist dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu. The number of dead was apparently exaggerated, a mass grave was supposedly uncovered (which turned out to be a pauper's grave), but it was enough to get the citizens riled up enough to overthrow that brutal tyrant, and end communism in Romania. That is a sort of yardstick which I measure 'noble lies', if it allows the unvarnished truth to come out as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, you have that now famous case of the 'Balloon Boy', and the quest for fame at any cost, for its own sake. Are there many less noble, self-serving causes you can think about? One can only wonder if this Heene guy is insane or just plain evil.

And who are these 'Yes Men'? Claiming to speak for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, saying that they have basically done an 'about face' in opposing climate change legislation, what have they really accomplished? To me, it was an ill-conceived prank, even if the cause was just, it set back the cause of environmentalism and gave all kinds of ammunition for the nay-sayers.

Still on the subject of questionable tactics, I often wonder about people like Al Gore and David Suzuki, and the sort of science that they used. I wonder if it is still the same science, or was it successfully rebuffed? It's one thing to be proven wrong, but God help them if they knowing used faulty science (you never hear about the 'Hockey Stick' anymore except from the Right). Gore can likely get away with it, but surely Dr. Suzuki has to answer to somebody in the scientific community. I wonder if he has been debunked on some major points or had his credentials seriously challenged. If they are that wrong, people will simply stop listening to climate scientists, and they would be right to do so.

Still, I may be wrong, but I still trust them. Climate scientists are human, and can never know everything or be always right, I cling to the naive belief that they are not nearly as way off the mark or just plain corrupt as some noisy people say they are. I am actually encouraged by today's news that China and India agreed to a pact to at least partially control carbon emissions (of course, communist China would agree to it, but what is India's motivation {snark}), which is quite likely easier for them to do than for us after becoming so dependent on them.

Of course, I read some conservative sites about how this is some widespread conspiracy by the United Nations to erode sovereignty and to take away all our freedom and property yadda yadda yadda. On the other hand, they could be right about carbon emissions having no effect on the climate, and I will be proven to be on the wrong side. If we are, I'll cling to another naive belief that this is not the concerted loonie-liberal-global-takeover that they are working themselves up into a lather about, and that the mistakes we could be making right now can be reversed without moving heaven and earth. I just wonder if the mistakes that we made in the past can be reversed as easily as the ones we're making now.

2 comments:

小愛 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Danny Melvin said...

What happened to my spam settings?

Blog Archive