Liberals: Assume I’m Right and You’re Wrong

AND SEE WHERE IT LEADS.

Now, this is not going to be an effort-free exercise. You’re going to have to put forth your hand, stretch your mind, and, see things from my perspective — i.e., the truth. Are you willing and able to even see the truth? Trust me on this: the Left has tried mightily to blind you to the truth since Left first became Left. That is to say, your entire system of beliefs is founded on a lie. In ignorance. On false premises.

It’s going to mean you must research the facts of your position and be ready to accept the truth. No hedging. No persiflage. No prevarication. No “greater truth.” (If you are urged to accept the greater ANYthing, you are, in essence, being asked to support a moral lapse in favor of an illusion. The so-called Greater Good subsumes a supposedly “Lesser” evil. But evil is a binary condition — something is or is not. There can be no shades of gray. And the claim that they exist is an attempt to blind you to the moral reality. The very notion of shades of gray in moral terms is a lie. It is evil. Not lesser: period. Plain old-fashioned evil.

No. A so-called “greater” good — an infringement against rights, for example, for the benefit of a majority (the “greater” part of this equivocation) — always subsumes a greater evil. No doubt, the Nazis would claim that the Holocaust was for the greater good. And, Godwin notwithstanding, so it goes. Someone always makes a sacrifice — and if it were willing, why would anyone have to ask? — in such a case. If you kill someone in the service of the “greater good” does that make your act not-murder? How does that work? Can you explain the mechanics of that?

Or, take global warming. The original term was CAGW — Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Both Alger and I have long demanded that, in order for the phenomenon to be worthy of humanity’s attention, ALL FOUR of the conditions must be satisfied, and any one of them failing on the merits invalidates the entire warmist argument. This is not a matter of opinion. It is self-evident fact. Moving the goalposts by changing the name of it to Climate Change is equally invalid. Climate is change. Asserting that a primary characteristic of a phenomenon is that which renders it problematic is what the logic folks call a tautology.

So, here’s where you have to exercise your mind. In order to test the notion of CAGW, indeed, to utterly debunk it, you need only find the answer to one question: the warmist conjecture asserts that the global temperature has risen x degrees over a period of centuries (one-point-five, or whatever). Fine. Here’s the kicker: How do they know? They are asserting a fact. Indeed, this fact is at the core of their argument. Without it, there is no argument. They are asserting that the temperature of the Earth has risen 1.7 degrees Centigrade since 1750. Or 1870. Or 1978. How. Do. They. Know? Show me the CarFax. There should be spreadsheets of data, attested to, certified, countersigned, and tested by repeated experimental verification. There should be ABSOLUTELY no doubt as to what the temperature of the Earth is right now. You should be able to surf to Weather Underground and get a number. It is 35 degrees Fahrenheit out there, folks. Or 53. It should lead the news report every evening at six and eleven.

Right? No-wait warming before the first commercial?

So, do some research. Look up the datasets. Import them into Excel. Do trend analysis. Or, accept as gospel the trend analysis available on the sites where the datasets are posted on the Web. Look at the metadata. How many sites are there? Where are they positioned? What areas of the globe to they cover? What areas are missed?

The more you learn about this subject, the closer you come to satori — to the realization, the enlightenment that there’s no there there. That there is no evidence — none whatsoever — that backs up the warmist assertion.

Now, it seems a reasonable assumption that, since the Northern Hemisphere was coming out of the Little Ice Age just as the Industrial Revolution was kicking into high gear, it’s a pretty good bet that the Earth has warmed — perhaps substantially — since then. But, as Alger has said many time in many venues, at the moment, the only proof the so-called “settled science” has put forth is that when we’ve looked where we’ve looked, the available data seems to indicate a warming trend — albeit nowhere near the intensity the warmists would have you believe. But that’s a helluva long way from proof or — gagme — “settled” science.

But da Doll is trying to make a larger point. That the foundations of your political beliefs are built on sand. Go ahead. Do your own research on warming. It’s easy to do. The actual data is readily available. Truly qualified scientists have gone over the data, the theory, its conclusions, and have thoroughly debunked it all. You won’t have to dig very hard to reach the inevitable conclusion.

And, as you do, you’ll come to recognize patterns. A certain shrillness of insistence. Patterns of illogic — argumentum ad hominem, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, playing liars poker with statistics — a hollowness of assertions, a tendacious mendacity: “Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?” A tendency to use sleight of hand and other tricks of misdirection to distract you from facts you know for certain.

And, as you expand your search for knowledge to other fields — rights, the use of government largesse to buy votes and peddle influence, the corruption and abuses inherent in all government, without regard to intent or the putative integrity of those involved, the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of using government’s monopoly on the initiation of the use of force to coerce involuntary surrender to demands for specific behavior against conscience — you will come to recognize these earmarks of the Leftist argumentarium. These earmarks of Left-liberal fascism.

And, if you are honest with yourself, you will come to realize the truth in my position and, when you come out of the experience, I believe you will be at least a libertarian — a true liberal — if not a Buckley-ian conservative. As Milton Friedman put it: a small-l libertarian and a capital-R Republican.

And then we’ll have to educate you to capital-R Republican perfidy in opposition to ordered liberty.

But that’s another battle. Some other time.

6 responses to “Liberals: Assume I’m Right and You’re Wrong

  1. Pingback: Liberals: Assume I’m Right and You’re Wrong | NCRenegade

  2. Pingback: » January 4, 2014

  3. Pingback: Taxes, Liberals, Al Qaeda, Menacing Flutes, MoreIOWADAWG'S BLAWG | IOWADAWG'S BLAWG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *