Cui Bono

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages ...

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages of public opinions on the likelihood of some scientists falsifying global warming research. Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 American adults conducted July 29-30, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cui bono is one of those phrases that indicates a skeptical man (or woman). You’d probably not be surprised that it is one of my favorite phrases. Why? because so very often people want us to do things that are (usually obviously) against our rational self-interest, and always, I wonder why. Do they have a higher good in mind, or do they merely seek some benefit at my (and your) expense? Nine times out of ten it has proved to be the latter.

There are people in the world who work selflessly for the common, or higher, good, mostly they are clergy. In my experience they are never politicians, who in my experience have no conception even of what the term means.

Global CoolingWarming, Climate Change, especially Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is no exception.

Robert Tracinski over at The Federalist has something to say about it the other day, I think we should read it.

What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming

If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate [change] is occurring, what evidence would be?

This has since been picked up by Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post‘s token right-leaning blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. There’s no pressure: Bailey and Adler merely insinuate that you are “obscurantist”—that is, you hate new knowledge—if you don’t agree.

That, by the way—the smug insistence of global warming alarmists on presenting themselves as the embodiment of scientific knowledge as such—is one of the reasons I stopped taking them seriously. In fact, II have thought about what it would take to convince me global warming is real. And it’s pretty clear that Bailey has not thought about it.

He really hasn’t. He’s thought a lot about the various scientific claims made by those who insist global warming is a man-made catastrophe. But he has not thought about how those claims add up or how they would have to add up to be convincing. All Bailey’s piece amounts to is: here is a long list of factual claims that seem to support the global warming scare; how high do I have to pile up these claims before you are convinced?

There is no sense that the proof of global warming has to proceed according to some systematic method, requiring it to clear specific hurdles at specific stages. Which betrays an unscientific way of thinking.

When I refer to “global warming,” and when Bailey and Adler refer to it, that term is a stand-in, not just for the trivial claim that average global temperatures are rising, but for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”: i.e., global temperatures are rising, it’s our fault, and we’re all gonna die.

What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming.

Did you read his article? Good for you! He makes a good case, I think. What it takes to convince me is very similar. I would also say this, I’ll be more likely to believe that we can predict the climate, when we can reliably predict the weather a couple of weeks in advance. No, they aren’t the same but they are related, and why should I believe you can predict the far more complicated climate, if you can’t do the short-term characteristics of it, the weather?

To convince me you have a multi step project.

First you have to convince me that the climate wouldn’t change normally, because I’m one of those people who remember back around the year 1200 or so, there were farms in Greenland, that had to be abandoned later because the climate got too cold. the climate has always been changing, to suddenly believe that it’s caused by man (and almost only, man) strikes me as a severe case of hubris and little more.

Then you have to convince me that it’s catastrophic. It might be, I suppose, it might also be beneficial. How many more people could we feed if we could grow crops a couple of hundred miles further north (or south)? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. I haven’t seen any scientific evidence (reputable or not) on the subject. What I have seen is nothing more than attempts to scare us, and that ain’t evidence.

That leaves you with the hardest one of all, you have to convince me that we (mankind) did it and that we can (and should) undo it. Most of us supported environmental legislation in the 1960s and 1970s because we could see that we were making a mess. When one gets sick from breathing and we’re watching rivers burn, well, that’s pretty clear, isn’t it? And it was clear that we were doing it, as well. And so it was time to fix it, and we did a pretty good job of it, overall.

None, not one, of the parameters of that are met in this amorphous mess of ‘Climate Change’. It’s called climate change, you’ll recall, because they can’t figure out if we’re making it warmer, or cooler, or to stay the same.

And then at the end of this article we get to the title of it. Cui Bono. Webster defines it this way:

1:  a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain

It’s a pretty useful concept, not least here. Our air and water is actually pretty damn clean, often our rivers are actually cleaner downstream from cities than they are upstream anymore, the fish are back, and safe once again, to eat. The air is fit to breathe once again. What’s a poor environmentalist to do to raise the money that pays his (her) exorbitant salary? Why start another crusade, of course, one can’t expect these people to get productive jobs, all they know is to scare people into giving them money, for them to give to politicians, if any is left after the fund-raising expenses, of course.

So add to that all the advertising agencies involved and the professional fund-raisers on the front end whose living disappears when this is debunked.

Then we get to the politicians, the bought dispensers of our money, whose power is directly attributable to the amount of our money that they can manage to divert to their (so-called) friends. And who, in addition, have an insatiable desire to control us, the people.

Amongst the recipients are those very universities that have made such a good thing out of generating this crisis, and so cooked the research books to keep the golden eggs coming in.

Cui bono? Almost everybody except the poor shmuck out there that gets to pay for all this with his money, while paying more for everything he needs to make a living, if his job hasn’t been exported to China, which is more worried about making a living than this nonsense.

And then they have the sheer effrontery to claim that they have our best interest at heart while simultaneously telling us that a damned polar bear is more important than our children.

Like I said above, when these patronising fools can predict the weather two weeks out, maybe I’ll start to listen to their shrill screaming but until then…

Well mostly we can expect them to keep screaming, “Shut up and sit down you little people. What do you know?”

Advertisements

About NEO
Lineman, Electrician, Industrial Control technician, Staking Engineer, Inspector, Quality Assurance Manager, Chief Operations Officer

32 Responses to Cui Bono

  1. Global Warming is a problem for science and NOT the politicians!

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Correct, IF it is even a problem!

      Like

      • That’s the point, we so-called layman can have an educated opinion, but the issue is for the so-called experts, scientists and science!

        Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          Best definition of an expert I know is ” a fool fifty miles from home”. Don’t believe anything the math doesn’t back, and even then check the data source. Your opinion is as valid as anybody else’s

          Like

        • Indeed, my father (a physicist) always said, ‘show me the math’! Btw, note the theologian and mathematician, Vern Poythress… writes about the use of logic and math in his theology. I have his profound book: Logic, A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought, (731 pages, Crossway, 2013).

          Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          yep, and the other meaning of Logos (usually translated as ‘love’ is ‘reason’.

          Like

        • the unit says:

          Expert: Former little bitty squirt.

          Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          Another good one! 🙂

          Like

        • Yes NEO, the “Personal Word”, His distinct and superfinite Personality – “reason” and the divine “image”! Also Paul calls Him-Christ-Messiah, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2: 3)

          Liked by 1 person

        • Such IS the great essence of the Incarnate-One… Eph. 2: 18!

          Like

        • Such a blessing, and an eternal one, we have to believe and know, the Incarnate One! HE entered our space and time for US! So amazing, human or our reason itself cannot comprehend this! And yet, so many stumble here? (Matt. 11: 25-27) … Sorry to get off topic, but HE is so worthy!

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ve invested in the stock market for too many years to put my money where somebody is telling me that this is where the ‘smart money’ is going. Usually, the smart money is manipulating, by buys, sells and shorting stocks and entire indexes in order to make gobs of money at our expense. I quit trying to figure out when Buffet and Soros are buying and selling; to do so is only to play their game and your timing and the fundamentals are always ignored . . . perfectly good companies have their stocks driven into the ground and then picked up by these giants for pennies on the dollar. I think the scenario is much the same. One has to ask the question, who has something to gain by selling this ‘man made’ aspect of global warming? For the temperature of the earth is always in flux and always will be. Do we have more influence over it than the Sun, the orbit, the tilt, the volcanic activity etc.?

    The folks who feed on fear are usually setting you up for robbery; of money, freedom, liberty or all the above. Old Al Gore has made a fortune off of it and the Obama Administration and other countries around the world see a goldmine in taxing folks for increases in their ‘carbon footprint.’ I guess I’ve been played a fool for too long by such fear mongers and hucksters to fall for every new disaster that I must fix with money out of my wallet. One only wonders what the next ‘snake oil’ salesman will have up his sleeve.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Bingo! And Buffet mostly made his by buying and holding. he rarely does short term things.

      Like

      • True, in the beginning, but now he has the clout to go in and invest directly with the companies and buys positions that would be about half of what we would pay for the fundamentals that are sound and look like a win. Where I might make a 5 or 10% profit he might gain 30 or 40% and don’t think that he doesn’t have a privileged view of the fundamentals and new technology or new contracts coming up in the future . . . can anyone say ‘insider trading’?

        Like

        • NEO says:

          Sure, and to me that’s as much a knock on a lot of the laws as anything. What gets me with him is manipulating politics for his gain, like opposing Keystone because it will hurt his railroad (the BNSF), even though it’s inefficient and far more dangerous than the pipeline.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Precisely my friend. The other problem is that when an individual (outside of the company) can have so much influence by his movement of stock that it can make or break the company. If he sells a large portion, the world takes notice and they start dumping the stock and the prices tank. Then he moves back in and picks the same stock up for half price. It sheer manipulation. The same happens when he buys a new stock. The world again takes notice and buys the same stock and he sells when it hits an all time new high. Usually taking the profits only and the remainder of the stock he holds . . . effectively owning a good share of stocks for absolutely nothing.

          Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          it is, and in my world it’s simply fraud, which is, and always has been, illegal.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Indeed it is NEO. It is this type of abuse that gives capitalism a bad name. This man-made global warming myth is much the same. They have built company after company on something that makes no economic sense. And the more we ignore them the worse the invectives: flat Earthers and now even saying people like me should be jailed for misleading people. When it gets this oppressive, you know you’ve hit a nerve and that they have lost the war of ideas and their only recourse is to silence or belittle you.

          Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          All those companies they built should be under the category of “A fool and his money…’ the problem is the conspired with the government to use tax money, and so defrauded every American in the process.

          Liked by 1 person

        • They should all be in jail but they took their big salary and let the company fail as they rightly knew would happen . . . unless they could sell us that they were going to be another Enron. Then they actually do go to jail (at least a few of them). But their just playing ball with the Government and getting loans and grants and taking their personal bit off the top and there will be nothing we citizens can do about it except clean out the criminals from Washington.

          Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          Nothing to add, nothing to subtract, perfectly said. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

  3. the unit says:

    Even the cleaner suspect. Last battery terminal brush I bought from NAPA, wasn’t long before the connection wire …brush to handle was turning, and wire bristles were not.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Yep, I’ve got one that went the same way.

      Like

  4. the unit says:

    I was going to send this comment I picked up to you by email as you might wish to steer clear. Gave you my email on previous article. And of course you still can steer clear. But it I think fits your Cui Bono theme.
    The last seven years of my working life and now two years into retirement, me and a few workers discussed and still do… why do the American Jews continue to support Democrats. We asked each other? Never could figure it out. The question arises on various websites still now still.
    Here is the comment…
    “http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/explaining_jewish_liberalism_comments.html#disqus_thread
    RockyS2 • 7 hours ago
    I really enjoyed this article for its honesty and its fairness in explaining the complexity of writing about Jewish views.
    My take:
    The majority of today’s liberal Jews belong to Reform Congregations. To say they are liberal is an understatement. The Rabbis are taught and seem indoctrinated to believe in Tikkun Olam. The original meaning of this concept was borrowed from Kabbalist who made a metaphor explaining imperfection in the world. Briefly, when God attempted to create the world, his perfection could not be contained comparing it to a vessel, it shattered since perfection could not be contained in the physical world-The world was born imperfect. Why this concept is important is that the second pillar of Reform Judaism has it that Tikkun Olam means to them a holy endeavor to “repair the world”-to make the world perfect”. It means in PROGRESSIVE-Judaism the action part of their faith is in essence using the government to enact righteous laws to protect and support minorities, equality, and the disenfranchised. Succinctly, it is Socialist first under
    the umbrella of Judaism.
    This important use of the term Tikkun Olam explains liberal Jews support for the Democratic Party, even though, that party would not vote God into their platform at the last Democratic convention and now the Democratic President is aligning his allegiance to Iran and threatening to not( I, unit, add here, I think support verses NOT) support sanctions against Israel in the U.N.
    I don’t mean to appear anti-Semitic and join the chorus of Jew haters. I write my observation to point out why I think Reform Jews see Tikkun Olam as their holy mission to repair the world and to caution them not to continue to vote against their own interests and see Israel critically
    to a higher standard than other nations.”

    I think Cui Hokum..

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Interesting, I’ll have to think about that, cause it is weird, how they support dems.

      Liked by 1 person

      • the unit says:

        Yeah, I thought interesting how they think (according to this guy)make imperfect world perfect by Cui Bono. Yep. 🙂 How flat is my wallet is good for me. Doctor told me to stop carrying my wallet in pocket with charge cards, ID, S.S., and money. Throws my hip out of sync. and causes osteo problems. P.S. Leave money at front desk.

        Liked by 1 person

        • NEO says:

          Sounds like my doc, as well! :-\

          Liked by 1 person

    • American Jews have always been problematic generally, in both religion and the political, and especially the so-called Reformed. My take anyway too. And I would consider myself to be a Christian Zionist to some degree.

      Like

  5. I seem to remember reading that at one point in earth’s history the Saudi Arabian peninsula was a lush, green spot. That was, of course, long before the Industrial Revolution and our use of fossil fuels. What happened? Well, I guess things change.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      Yep, i read that as well. in addition one time the level of the Black sea got so high it ran over and filled the mediterranean basin, some guy named Noah, floated away on it, a handyman he was, built his own boat and all.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. the unit says:

    Well they got it all figured out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s637-5A9Gro

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: My Article Read (4-20-2015) (4-21-2015) | My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s