Silence Imposed on the Learned

Around 1610, Galileo Galilei began championing the heliocentric view which placed the Sun at the center of the universe. Contrary to the view of the majority of scientists of the day, Galileo met with bitter opposition and was eventually denounced to the Inquisition. In an attempt to silence his dissenting view, Galileo was sentenced and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Ferdinand and Isabella, the co-monarchs of Spain, established the Spanish Inquisition to operate completely under royal control. Only thought that was sanctioned by the government was allowed. One of the main effects of the inquisition was to end free thought and scientific thought in Spain. As one 16^th century Spaniard in exile put it: "Our country is a land of ... barbarism; down there one cannot produce any culture without being suspected of heresy, error and Judaism. Thus silence was imposed on the learned." For the next few centuries, while the rest of Europe was slowly awakened by the influence of the Enlightenment, Spain stagnated.

In a 1578 handbook for Inquisitors it states that, “...for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."

Today, another inquisition is being established to silence scientific thought. Like the Spanish Inquisition of the 15^th century, this new inquisition is being operated under government control – individual nations, including the United States, as well as world organization like the United Nations. Seemingly taking their modus operandi from the 1578 handbook, they attempt to punish dissenters in such a way as to terrify and wean away others from this supposed heretical view.

This modern day inquisition has successfully imposed silence on the very learned. The learned scientists of our day who dare to disagree with prevailing theory that climate change is caused by man are ridiculed, marginalized, and in some cases threatened with loss of station, employment and reputation. According to former Vice President Al Gore, the science that proves global warming is complete – there can be no dissension and the discussion is over. Senator John Kerry counsels news organizations to not give equal time to “absurd ideas”, and some in the scientific community (receiving their government funding) claim that those who won’t accept that man is causing the changes in our climate are like those who would not accept that the world is round!

The Green Movement has become a huge cash cow for those who adhere to the theory of man-made climate change. Al Gore is purported to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. No wonder opposition is being silenced in any way they can do it! Following the money trail leads to the reality that going Green is the newest way to attempt to redistribute the wealth of the western capitalist nations while giving the climate change prophets more profits!

Even with the power of world organizations, news outlets, government entities, and the ivory towers of universities there have been modern day Galileos who rise against the prevailing thought and courageously question what some scientists claim as fact, not open for discussion. This questioning of the veracity of man-made global warming if nothing else, at least proves that the discussion is not over, the case is not closed, scientific thought is still open to dissention.

Throughout the whole global warming debate there have always been facts that call it into question, yet recently there have been even more findings that debunk the whole theory:

1. Scientific fraud. Emails uncovered from a London University show that data was manipulated to “prove” that carbon emissions from man were causing global warming. Now other universities that have been providing this data are being investigated for their role in the fraudulent data presented. A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct.

2. New discoveries. A new NASA study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. The study also finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps much less heat than global warming enthusiasts have claimed. The “hockey stick” model showing how global warming is increasing has been discounted, and now is not being used by the climate enthusiasts.

3. 95% of Greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water vapor is 99.999% from natural sources. Other natural sources make up most of the rest of Greenhouse gas. Man’s carbon emissions make up 0.28% of greenhouse gas. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. Most "facts and figures” regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impact.

4. “Global Warming” changed to “Climate Change.” When the earth is not following the models that global warming enthusiasts predicted, these devotees need to change their parlance to match what is actually happening – the climate changes. If it is too hot, man-made emissions caused it. If it is too cold, man-made emissions caused it. If there is a hurricane, man-made emissions caused it. Man-made emissions seemed to be the cause of everything from harder than usual winters in New England to whales swimming ashore in California.

There are many more facts that are contrary to the Climate Change doctrine, but the preceding examples alone are enough to at least open up an honest debate. However, the existing theory doesn’t seem able to stand up to peer review, so the inquisition steps in to marginalize or discredit those who disagree. History alone shows us that there has been climate change – sometimes extreme – throughout all the time of man. Glaciers recede and ruins of civilizations are found beneath them. Writings from ancients tell about the extreme cold that caused northern barbarians to move south. The climate changes – that is the natural course of this earth as it moves around the sun. To say any different is completely disingenuous.

I am an environmentalist. I want to see clean air and unspoiled mountains. That is why I am a proponent of nuclear energy, hydrogen cars, natural gas, and unfettered scientific thought. The medieval inquisitions stagnated civilization, and the modern day climate change inquisition is attempting to do the same. Unleash our scientific potential and there is nothing that can’t be accomplished. Fetter it with curly light bulbs and phony climate data, and our country will become a land of barbarism; where one cannot produce any culture without being suspected of heresy and error, and the climate inquisition will triumph. Thus silence will be imposed on the learned.

Socialism: The Destroyer of Souls

In the Charles Dickens classic, two men approached a wealthy businessman on the streets of London asking for a small donation to help the poor. His reply was, “Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses – are they still in operation?” The collectors sadly gave an affirmative reply, prompting the miserly businessman to state, “Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it… I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.”

Prior to 1834, England’s poor laws had the philosophy that everyone was due a minimum subsistence and that the local communities/parishes were responsible for this. It was neighbors taking care of neighbors, and those who needed help received it until they could get back on their feet. In their utilitarian view, the central government instituted the New Poor Laws in 1834 that took a 180 degree turn on relief for the poor. To the central government this law made perfect sense. It created a central standardization and uniformity in the way to deal with poverty. By forcing the poor into the workhouse they believed that the poor would be more diligent in obtaining and maintaining employment. Of course, like all government socialization, they only compounded the problem. The New Poor Law removed poverty from the communities and created a welfare state, leading to a dehumanization of the poor. The communities or parishes had historically and legally been responsible for the poor and the poor had certain rights. Yet, with the creation of the welfare state, those rights were abrogated for the greater good of the people as a whole.

The evils of socialism are many, and certainly the inherent loss of individual freedom is at the top of the list of harms. Before any of us were born we fought against being forced to do good. We choose agency, even though we knew the hardships that being free would bring to our lives. We rejected the Evil One’s plan that would have forced us all to do everything right. Davy Crockett – Member of Congress, hero of the Alamo – said, “We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

Yet now our government is attempting to create a society that forces us to give our substance for the “common good” of all. Besides the fact that the more government involvement creates more poverty, what this does to us as a people is allows us to abdicate our responsibility to take care of the down trodden – and this diminishes us, and our spirits.

The greatest harm of socialism – that thing that Satan wants the most – is for us to abdicate our charitable actions to the government. My view is that the “concept” and “objective” of socialism is to destroy the soul. The left keeps using the argument that if we truly cared about people we would want them to be ensured a sustenance from the government – like they did in England in 1834. But what socialism really is is us giving the government the ability to care for others so we don’t have to. I can’t think of anything that would be more detrimental to the soul than not giving of ourselves to others – no charity. We who abdicate, directly or indirectly, our charitable actions to the government are hurt deeper on a spiritual plain.

When we think of our neighbor down the street who just became unemployed, do our thoughts sound like: “that’s too bad, but luckily I’ve paid into the unemployment insurance fund ever since I’ve held a job, so thankfully I’ve done my part”? Or when someone is sick on the verge of dying do we say to ourselves, “sure hope he bought life insurance so his family is taken care of” and then go merrily along assuaging our consciences? Yet our divine responsibility is to cradle the stranger in our arms comforting them and easing them into the next life.

Socialism is evil because it takes away our ability to watch our neighbor suffer – or step in and raise the sufferer up, feeding him, clothing him, and giving him comfort. A true utopian society is not one where the government is there to help when there is need, but where neighbors/communities know each other and never would allow someone to starve OR lose their dignity.

As I understand it, Jesus taught that if a man asks you for your coat give him your cloak as well. What the government wants is that if a man asks you for your coat, give your coat and cloak to the government and they’ll give the man a sock. There is something that happens to a person and to a community when they all pitch in together to help someone – when they individually give of themselves. If we lose that sense of brotherhood, we’ve lost our souls.