House of Eratosthenes

During his 2012 presidential bid, Romney was dismissive about Democratic efforts to combat the effects of climate change, and he pushed for an expanded commitment to fossil fuels. But in a speech in California on Monday, Romney, who is considering a third run for president in 2016, signaled a shift on the issue. According to the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the former Massachusetts governor “said that while he hopes the skeptics about global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem,” and he lamented that Washington had done “almost nothing” to stop it.

Oh, so Washington is supposed to do something about that now…

Sadly, Michelle Malkin’s headline about this was probably the fairest one:

Mitt Romney to make minor tweaks to climate change stance until he’s elected president

So why can’t a “conservative” listen in an open-minded way to all sides of the climate change debate, impartially reach his own conclusion on it, and, should that conclusion merit a greater intrusion into our lives by the powers in Washington, start to speak out in support of that? And remain a conservative?

The answer has to do with the mistake made when the “global warming” movement renamed itself — and the rest of us allowed it to — into “climate change.” Consider what happens when things rename themselves. Companies rename themselves rather easily, because it becomes pointless for the rest of us to refer to the company by its old name. For humans it’s a little bit tougher, you have to take some time out of the other things you have to do in order to fill out some paperwork, then shunt it through a system that is clogged up silly with broken cross-references due to previous mentions of your old name. For political movements, it’s equally tough for the same reason, a lot of effort has already been plowed into making the movement known by its old name, and now all that branding has to be re-done. It still happens occasionally: “Progressives” into “liberals” and then back into “progressives” again; “Womens’ lib” into “Feminism.” This happens when the political movement has lost a lot of credibility and wants to get it back again, much like a criminal might steal the identity of an infant who died the year he was born.

For science to rename itself? Science speaks with the authority of science — a pity that is, sometimes, since we have a lot of ideas calling themselves “science” that are not reached scientifically. And so it does rename itself, and easily, when the renaming is justified. When the science actually changes, with sufficient significance that the renaming became an absolute necessity. That was not the case with changing “global warming” into “climate change.” The only thing that reconciles that is if you perceive the “movement” to be what it truly is, a political movement and not science. It was not renamed to accommodate or acknowledge the arrival of game-changing new evidence. It was renamed because it lost credibility as a political movement.

As a reference to the ignition point of controversy, to the epicenter of factional disagreement, the name “climate change” is outright fraudulent. We do not disagree about whether the climate is changing. That’s just dumb. In fact, no one has ever embraced any default presumption that the climate should remain static, like a ball bearing remaining round or a machine part remaining flat, except for the proponents of climate change legislation.

An honest name for this political movement would be something like: The “Put government in charge of the weather” movement. Or, the “Give us your money and we’ll save the world” movement. That is where people disagree, on this notion that a few should be given control over the resources and labor of the many, and this will somehow have a positive bearing on the planet’s continuing ability to sustain life. That is the epicenter. And it would reveal that the proponents of the movement are, well…perhaps they should not be united with their money in the first place. But back to the political movement. It is a splendid example of the true difference between conservatism and liberalism, in this day and age. The way I defined it:

What exactly does conservatism seek to conserve? Civilization, the blessings that come from having it, and the definitions that make civilization possible. From what does liberalism seek to liberate us? Those things — starting with the definitions.

Conservatives have no business supporting the “Give us your money or the planet is doomed” movement. None at all. Conservatives conserve civilization, and climate change is an attempt to wreck civilization, so civilization can be rebuilt into something else. Something like ancient Egypt, making Pharoahs and royalty out of only a few, enslaving everyone else.

So Mitt Romney wants to support that now; Washington should do something. We need a bigger government. Okay, my question for Romney is the same one I’ve had for lefties on this thing. Would an even-bigger government contribute to this climate change? It’s human activity after all. If not, why not?

If not, why not?

For the same reason the Left doesn’t want employers making decisions about your healthcare, but would rather have those decisions in the hands of the government, a.k.a. the nation’s largest employer: Because.

And if that doesn’t convince you, they’ve got a followup: “Shut up.”

And if that doesn’t work: “Shut up, racist.”

All ist klar, Herr Kommissar?
- Severian | 01/25/2015 @ 08:32
Gosh, just like a certain apologist for the NAZI party in England’s “politics”.
Gee Mitt. You’ve been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
Now be a good boy and fall on your sword.
- CaptDMO | 01/25/2015 @ 08:35
And if that doesn’t work: “Shut up, racist.”

That’s why I’d like to bounce it off ol’ Mitt. Call him a “the Left” if you want, but one thing is for sure: He certainly doesn’t want to be thought of as such. So maybe he can be the one who finally explains it to me. Human activity is heating up the globe, so solution: We ramp up the human activity that is government, up, up, WAY up…prob-a-luhm solved.

Steal little boy’s underpants, ?????????, profit.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2015 @ 09:04
It’s clear that the Left doesn’t consider their preferred kind of government to be a human activity. Leftists complain just as long and loud as the rest of us about standing in line at the DMV, or when the post office loses their mail… but they can’t — literally can’t — see that government-run healthcare functions the exact same way. They’re just as wary as the rest of us about scumbag lawyers, and even politicians from other countries, but stick a (D) behind a scumbag lawyer’s name and all of a sudden he’s righteousness personified. It’s a cargo-cult thing.

(Run a simple test if you don’t believe me. Present to any Leftist the story of John Doe, a sleazy corporate lawyer who lied about being a member of a minority group to score himself a sweet gig at a think tank, which he then parlayed into a political career. Or Tim Smith, a nonentity who stirred up the low-info voters in a deep red state by banging on the abortion issue, riding it to national prominence. Watch them get their dander up. And then… ooops, sorry, that’s Elizabeth Warren and Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis. Mind status: blown).

Orwell explained it best, as he often does: Crimestop is “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.”

Tl; dr — Massive, carbon-spewing human activity isn’t massive, carbon-spewing human activity when it’s placing regulations on carbon-spewing human activity. Because social justice.
- Severian | 01/25/2015 @ 12:40
Tweak Until Elected

Isn’t that the strategy for the 2016 Democrat field?
- Rich Fader | 01/25/2015 @ 20:51
No Rich Fader, it is twerk until elected.
- Open other end | 01/26/2015 @ 06:27
It could be both. Although I cringe at the thought of pretty much everybody in that field grinding.
- Rich Fader | 01/26/2015 @ 13:58
Rich Fader,

oh, I dunno…. Remember, John Kerry is a big fan of hip-hop. He said so on the campaign trail. So I have to assume he can bust some “urban” moves from time to time. And I’ve heard that Hillary has spent her fair share of time studying the movements of the female posterior, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).
- Severian | 01/27/2015 @ 12:45
As I saw it put, Mitt Romney wants to rebrand himself as authentic.

Of course “authentic” and “brand” are mutually exclusive – you can’t remain authentic if you’re simply posing as such. Or as the wag put it – sincerity is vital: learn to fake that and you’ve got it made.
- nightfly | 01/28/2015 @ 15:25
Nightfly,

exactamundo. Mitt is, was, and always will be the “right wing” Al Gore. Both will do, say, or be anything in order to get elected president, because that’s what their Daddies declared they were born to do.

In a perverse way, though, I’m glad he ran (and is running again) — it shows, as if any more evidence were needed, that politics completely shuts a lot of people’s brains off. Say what you will about his family connections getting him a head start in life, but Mitt is obviously a very bright guy, and a very smart businessman. CEO-of-Bain-Capital Mitt would laugh the warm-mongers, with their pseudoscience and their messiah complexes, right out of the boardroom. Politician Mitt, though, makes serious faces and solemn statements and might actually mean it….
- Severian | 01/28/2015 @ 17:16
[…] For File CXCIII “Why the Left Hates Nuclear Families” Tweak Until Elected “The Equality Racket” “…Next Time Some Silly Cow Gets in Your […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/31/2015 @ 08:31

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Tweak Until ElectedSunday, January 25th, 2015

Tweak Until Elected
Sunday, January 25th, 2015