The Undesirable Mitigation
Statistician William Briggs and a previous Professor at the Cornell Medical School once wrote, “A theory becomes The Science when a mitigation or solution to the theory becomes more important than the theory itself. “ Yes, he was talking about anthropogenic climate change. In other words, was the theory of climate change contrived because the mitigation or fix was more critical and far-reaching than the actual condition – certainly politically it was, largely, depending on which side of the aisle one prefers to sit?
He further wrote, “Disputing the mitigation, to them, is equivalent to disputing the theory.” This would be the case with the compromise of using nuclear energy which emits no carbon dioxide. However, while this concession is accurate mitigation, it is rejected by The Science faithful. Why - because it would be the optimum remedy to a deceptive problem that they wish not to cure.
Imagine, the eco-politicians, alarmists, advocate scientists, and activist campaigners all say that human-generated climate change is an existential threat and will one day cause irrevocable devastation to the earth, but will not even contemplate or entertain the idea of nuclear energy which can furnish sufficient energies, with no modification to the electrical grid, and emit no carbon dioxide - a system absolutely unworkable with renewable energy sources. That in itself is extremely telling about the fallacy they peddle.
The solution or mitigation to the problem will not be reached or satisfied until its progressive and collectivist political goals have all been met. Further, the deception has gone so far that there would certainly be a fractional economic collapse. Let me explain.
I have often wondered if cancer will ever be fully eradicated. For one reason – the economics of cancer is positively staggering. The economic burden of cancer is incredible, but with exclusively-dedicated hospitals, clinics, research facilities, charitable organizations, patient housing, and all of the employees and personnel involved, can the purge of the disease actually create a significant degree of economic ruin? While the answer is yes, all we can do is hope that finances and greed play no role in the discovery of the ultimate cure; however, I have always been afraid that it just might.
This same scenario certainly befalls anthropogenic climate change. The trillions of dollars being spent by governments using taxpayer funds, NGOs, foundations, and funding collected by activist research scientists, governmental departments, the United Nations, environmental organizations, and nations begging for fallacious reparation monies from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and on and on and on.
Irrespective of evidence to the contrary, anthropogenic climate change likely has no end – it will not end in catastrophic earthly disaster, but neither will it end as long as the money is maintained and the interrelated leftist politics remains unaborted.
Certain issues will never have a completed resolution under the current hostile human environment – the claims of racism, misogyny, social injustices, and environmental injustices are matters of the economy as well as societal conflicts- all we can hope for is that the bitterness, acrimony, and hostility somehow subsides. You can be assured that those that bate their hooks with all of these perceived injustices will ever say these injustices have now abated or are over.
All the dollars that are spent on maintaining power rather than maintaining people is nauseating. We are often overwhelmed, with the sick, the impoverished, and the homeless and the situation simply worsens, but the BS for political control and power continues incessantly.