Giving legitimacy to nonsense

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey (and also in preparation for it) the Sky Is Falling brigade all over the media and the internet went into full non sequitur mode like they do with every last typhoon, tornado, snowstorm, dense fog, afternoon scattered shower, or other weather event that turns up, using it as an opportunity to poke fun at people who actually believe in science and claim that theirs is the one true religion.  They, of course, think they’re mocking “deniers” and believe they’re being all kinds of clever in their ignorance.  97% of scientists agree with them, don’t you know, so don’t YOU feel stupid now?

Except, you know, they don’t, and the ones that do have invested their lives and careers in promoting the climate cult, but we’ve discussed that before.

I’m not here today to talk about climate hysterics so much as I am to discuss controlling the language, and the ongoing fallacy of giving credence and legitimacy to the left’s nonsense by accepting their premises in a misguided and ultimately vain attempt to not look “stupid.”  This is an issue I have with many “conservative” voices, Steven Crowder being one of the first who comes to mind, who try to be “fair and balanced” or “look at both sides” even though they know or ought to know one side is outright lying.  What I am tired of hearing out of Crowder and Klavan and others is this fundamental concession when the subject of “climate change” comes up: “yes, of course we know the climate is always changing, so we believe in climate change.”

Now let me tell you why that’s wrong.  “Climate change” in the leftist lexicon is not what it means in normal English.  It does not mean what it sounds like, which is essentially “changes in temperature and weather patterns over a long term without regard to cause or determination about whether such change is a net positive or negative.”  When the leftists say “climate change” they mean “the utter and complete destruction of the planet and its ability to support life of any kind, that is directly caused by human activity and capitalism/Western society in particular, and white people are doing it on purpose.”  You cannot have this discussion without understanding the foundation that the proponents of this bogus, unscientific theory base it on, and you’re not winning yourself any points by buying into their lingo and claiming that “well of course I believe the climate goes through cycles and it changes periodically, therefore I guess I believe in climate change, but…”  And therein lies the objective.  By getting you to buy into their premise using manipulated language, the climate cultists get you to start off the argument already on a “but,” which gives their ludicrous position the intellectual high ground from the beginning and turns an indefensible proposition into the default starting point.

It goes without saying that conceding this point does not win you any respect or credit from the climate cultists, and even if it did, why would you want either?  So in a foolhardy attempt to make utter idiots think you’re not anti-science, you end up doing nothing but making your position weaker from the outset, and in reality you’re not agreeing with what the idiots mean when they say “climate change” at all.  I initially thought a good comparison would be to claim that acknowledging that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea exists means that you believe that North Korea is either a democracy, a republic, a country that gives a good damn about its people, or all of the above, but even that’s not really a good enough analogy.  A better analogy is as follows: “I believe that cows exist.  I believe that, as mammalian organisms, there are male and female cows, so male cows exist.  I believe that, as a male cow consumes sustenance and his digestive processes work, periodically the male cow (typically called a “bull”) will excrete a brown, gooey, odorous substance which is colloquially referred to as ‘crap’ or ‘s**t.’  Therefore, I believe in ‘bullcrap’ or ‘bulls**t.'”  This does not address the specific bulls**t being peddled by the climate cultists and in fact quite misses their asinine point entirely, and in an attempt to appease brazen liars and fools, you only make yourself look just as clueless as them.  They, on the other hand, get to bray their dullwitted laughter and high-five their moronic friends and followers as they take a victory lap based on your unforced error.  Congratulations, you got outplayed by someone who thinks consensus is science, hope that one stung.

Er go, saying “I believe in climate change” is the equivalent of saying “I believe in bulls**t.”  It’s a statement so self-apparent that it ought to be an obvious word trap.  It gets you nowhere and actually sets you on the defensive, which is precisely the point of choosing such a nebulous and unassuming phrase to build their cult around.  So no, I do not believe in “climate change” and even though bulls objectively make manure in the field I do not believe in bulls**t.  Just stop it guys, we all know what they mean and it’s not what you’re trying to say.