I'm not much of a rocket-scientist, physicist, chemist, theologian, doctor, nurse, astronomer, computer scientist (I actually knew a lady who who had certifications and proclaimed herself via business cards as such but I'd never take any advice from her on what to buy from Dell or HP), inventor, naturalist, geographer, urban planner, interior decorations expert, environmentalist, or art expert.
I've traveled more than most folks. I can quickly spot a pickpocket, a gypsy, or a drugged-up thug on the street in front of me. I can jump on a plane without any hotel reservations and readily accept what fate will deliver upon me. I can sit in a Turkish cab with no suspension or springs....cursing the curves taken at various speeds and get a thrill from the adventure.
I've read between four and five thousand books (I don't count much anymore). As a kid, I read the Encyclopedia Britannica three times over. I consider the first page of a Tale of Two Cities to be the best written piece of literature ever....even if written by a French guy.
I read an awful lot on history and failures of cultures. I know that history books are worked up pieces of slanted commentary.....that usually work to make something look great, or something look woeful or terrible. I've spent vast stretches of my life reading over civil wars, exploration, discoveries, low points of human society, and heroic efforts by a few men with only luck as their reason for success.
I have a love-hate thing about the Bible and it's history of revisions. The revisions, sadly, might make it better than the original written document.
I probably know more about European history than ninety-nine percent of American society. I can lead you around to a short and concise discussion over Prussia, the Kaiser and the entire decade prior to World War I.
If directions are provided, I can tear apart a printer or computer to replace a part, but won't claim I know much about why things work or fail on a piece of hardware.
I respect Socrates, Plato and Aristotle more than any human of the past two thousand years....believing they expanded the thought process a thousand times over. Shockingly, none of the three ever got award for anything or any Nobel Prize.
I think H L Mencken, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, and Eric Hoffer probably understood the minds and common pitfalls of people more than anyone of American history over the past one-hundred-and-fifty years.
So I come to this odd prevailing tactic that I occasionally in German intellectual circles and climate change enthusiasts. "Ninety-seven percent of scientists have proclaimed consensus on it". End of discussion.
It was MEANT as a "ace of spaces". Once put down, this was the end of all arguments. Yeah....even if Socrates were sitting at the pub and asked one more damn question....he was ruled out of order.
You just aren't meant to question anything, because scientists overrule debate at that point.
Einstein would likely be weeping over such positive news like this....if he were around today. He could voice something, note some consensus, and that was the end of criticism over his science figures jotted on some blackboard.
I went looking at the whole 97-percent episode and how it got generated. Someone already did the homework.....(30 May 2013, Forbes Magazine). Basically, you write a standard of support on the wall, and then you find 12,000 reports that fit. The fact that some of the 12,000 reports are deemed to question the direction of analysis....didn't bother the guys doing the original 97-percent profile. You were either for something, or against something. If you questioned the outcome.....it doesn't mean you were against it.
Yeah, it's hard to match this up to some logical profile of research. Einstein's original concepts? It was probably a three-percent group who believed in his thoughts, and ninety-seven percent who questioned how he arrived at such an erroneous position. In one case, a university ran up an entire publication that had over a hundred known scientists in this period who questioned him and his logical outcomes or ideas.
Where does the ninety-seven percent deal lead onto? Mostly a dead end, as perceived by those who want to believe in this.
The sad thing? Once you put down the argument....start to analyze facts and data....question trends....push out lobbyists and agenda-tied-down enthusiasts....we might actually be able to come to two or there rational ideals.
I have no doubt that urban centers are now heat-tubs, and the amount of concrete, asphalt and building structures are producing a heat source that didn't exist a hundred years ago. It wouldn't take a mass of analysts or contrived data to establish this fact. Nor would the solution be difficult to imagine....we go to building materials with different or less heat-attraction. We put a massive amount of shrubs and trees across an urban area. We lessen concrete pads....greening them instead. All of this is simple and workable within a hundred years.
I have no doubt that our knowledge on solar winds and the influence of the sun are marginal. There are those who could talk for hours on the subject, yet continually hit some point where you know there's just nothing else they can say or add. The knowledge has a limit.
Instead of a massive number of people running off to some university program and becoming environmentalists......we need some of these people to reprogram their efforts in life, and refocus on solar science. I know....it won't have anything to do with environmentalism, saving lakes, or changing cultures. But we seem to have prioritized things to fit what agenda science demands.
Finally, history says alot about the warm era of Rome, and the cold period of the 1300s-to-1700s in Europe and America. I just don't see much in terms of research to say something over this. It's like a cloak of invisibility has descended and it's best for environmentalists to just skip the topic. If you can't flip this into your theory....don't waste time on it. It might be interesting if we could convince the model gamers to flip over and take the historians along for a ride.....looking at two critical periods and note various reasons why this happened. Maybe it has nothing to do with climate change, mankind, or environmentalism. It might be worth knowing.
So, if I come off as negative against the common German theme of absolute climate change.....it's mostly because I'm of the idea that we might want to ask questions. If this were merely a debate about the clutch versus automatic transmission, and we were going to dump one and force everyone to go to the other.....folks would stand up to voice concern.
The same is true if we suddenly felt compelled to tax sugar usage in all sodas or candy bars....saying the debate was over, and the health conscious-minded society folks were in the right.....folks would stand up to voice concern.
The same is true if we felt an urge to tax all foreign cars entering Germany on the autobahn, and simply mandate they buy a little sticker and pay some maut-related fee at the border.....to make everything "right and fair". Well....folks would stand up to voice concern.
The same is true if we felt a German TV tax was right and fair, just urging everyone to accept the seventeen Euro a month fee, and don't question the way that ZDF or ARD spend the money they receive in whatever way they desire. Germans would stand up to voice concern.
Limited debate....marginal debate....unfocused debate....no debate....usually ends up with a comedy of errors or a false sense of accomplishment.
History will note that a percentage of the Catholic Church hierarchy of the 1500s....believed the Earth was flat. Denying this usually meant a visit by some physical thugs, who made sure you got the right message. Today? We might actually end up with "verbal thugs" who want you to step along with some climate change agenda that they bought on, without asking any questions.
If this didn't have an affect on my electrical rates, airline taxation games, fake carbon exchange gimmicks, or fake gas tax strategies.....I personally wouldn't care, and neither would most people in society. By inflecting these little tax gimmicks into the situation.....you've invited me to act like Socrates and ask stupid questions or comment on where an agenda-laden strategy is taking us. I'm willing to play your game.....the question is....would you allow such an open game?