Why John Kerry’s ‘Flat Earth Society’ Slam is All Wrong
John Kerry said the following in a speech he gave at a graduation ceremony at Boston College:
“If the US does not act and if it turns out that the critics and naysayers and the members of the Flat Earth Society — if it turns out they’re wrong, then we are risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet.”
This isn’t the first time Kerry pulled the “flat earth” card to support the man-made global warming myth. For example, on the February 15, 2014 “Sunday morning program CBS News Sunday Morning, [Charles] Osgood touted a recent speech by Secretary of State John Kerry in which Kerry ‘likened deniers of climate change to those who once believed Earth is flat.’”
Almost any time some scientific theory is questioned, the questioners are compared to people who believed the earth was flat.
Where would science be today if every time someone questioned a theory, those supporting the existing theory ridiculed and banned the questioners? Louis Pasteur was ridiculed for his claim that unseen organisms (germ theory) caused diseases.
There are several problems with Kerry’s claim that people who question the thesis that climate change is the result of the actions of humans are like people who believe in a flat earth.
The first reason should be obvious to everybody. You don’t have to be a scientist to prove the earth is round. All a person has to do is get in a boat and sail into the sunset.
Second, there is overwhelming evidence that nobody of any significance believed the earth was flat. The claim that Christopher Columbus had to convince the scientists and cartographers of his day that the earth was round is pure fiction, manufactured by Washington Irving in his 1828 two-volume biography of Columbus. The dispute with Columbus in the 15th century was over how big around the earth was not whether the earth was round or flat. Columbus was wrong; the map makers were right.
For decades, the flat earth slam was standard historical mythology that was written into our nation’s textbooks and is pulled out as an ideological hammer every time some liberal lie is questioned.
Kerry and other global warming enthusiasts are using one myth to perpetuate another. They are counting on an ignorant people so they can get away with the mythology in order to raise taxes, implement more regulations, and control our lives.
Third, I don’t know anybody who denies that the climate is changing. It changes every day. We’ve had hurricanes, snow storms, torrential rains and flooding, and droughts in the past, and we’ll have them in the future. A little historical digging will prove the point. Twenty years of weather patterns is not a long time when compared to earth’s history.
The sample is too small to control the lives of 7 billion people by bureaucrats who can’t even run a hospital well. Making predictions about future weather conditions based on present temperatures and weather patterns is a risky predictive business.
Fourth, there isn’t universal agreement that man-made global warming is a fact. It’s the “man-made” qualifier that’s the issue. I suspect the sun – that fiery star 93 million miles from earth –has a lot to do with climate change. There are good scientists who dispute the evidence presented by global warming advocates. Of course, they are not permitted to question the evidence.
Fifth, too much of the scientific community gets its money from grants that come from the government taken from hard working Americans. There is a reason to fudge evidence or at least put the best spin on evidence if your job depends on the outcome. Power and money are the deciding factors on how the “facts” are spun.
Sixth, man-made climate change is impossible to verify or falsify. “Whatever happens,” Joel B. Pollak writes, “it’s ‘climate change,’ because even the extreme cold must have been caused by some kind of heating somewhere else in the world.”
Much of science today, because of its close alignment with government, has a medieval feel to it. Like their medieval counterparts, many scientists are paid for their scientific work. If there is no looming crisis, government isn’t interested. The best way to get and hold a job is to manufacture a crisis that only government can fix. The incentive, therefore, is to bend the facts enough to keep the crisis alive and dollars flowing.
Remember how the tobacco industry was slammed for publishing scientific studies that claimed cigarette smoking was not detrimental to health? The argument was made that the reason for the positive spin was because the tobacco companies paid for the reports. Are we to believe that climatologists and other man-made global warming advocates are above such manipulation?
To combat the facts that cigarette smoking was harmful, “cigarette makers used medical doctors in their advertisements to promote smoking cigarettes.” Here are two examples:
- More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.
- “Doctors in all branches of medicine smoke Camels. ‘See how Camels agree with your throat.’”
“The none-too-subtle message was that if the doctor, with all of his expertise, chose to smoke a particular brand, then it must be safe.”
We can apply this to Climate Chaos: “The none-too-subtle message was that if scientists, with all their expertise, say that man-made global warming is a fact, it must be true.”
Professor Lennart Bengtsson “expressed concern over the ‘increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research’ and a wide-spread ‘bias in publication records.’ Specifically, he criticized the ‘alarming … tendency’ of scientists to predict extreme weather events and asserted ‘there is no 97% consensus about this.’”