Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At long last, the details of one of the proposed infrastructure bills became public knowledge thanks to the New York Times. Although the details of the expenditures aren’t known yet, some of the details came out with a particular focus on fighting climate change. And a big focus on fighting climate change involves fossil fuels.

No matter where you go, the same people who keep telling us the planet is doomed tell us the way to prevent the inevitable is to do away with fossil fuels and convert to renewable energy. Although I haven’t seen any of the main proponents of renewable energy travel via solar vehicle, it’s worth exploring what the Left thinks of fossil fuels and why they’re so keen on making them as obsolete as the career of Yahoo Serious.

fossil fuels

What the Left thinks it means – sources of energy that are killing the planet with diminishing returns

What it really means – the only energy came in town for now, and possibly ever

The self-professed “Party of Science” has been after fossil fuels for a while now, but it wasn’t always the case. Back in the heady days of the 70s, some climate scientists suggested adding more pollution to the atmosphere to ward of global cooling. As we’ve since figured out, they were wrong, and as a result, the Left doesn’t take those dire predictions seriously or as valid. Instead, they have their own dire predictions to push, namely global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever they’re calling it this millisecond to generate fear.

And the scientists the Left are relying on for their proof? Turns out they’re wrong, too. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Undeterred by the lack of global catastrophes directly linked to fossil fuels, the Left has made it their aim to get us to move away from fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment. And they’ll fly all over the world and drive in long lines of cars to go to events in large venues using more electricity than Las Vegas during Christmas telling us about the dangers that await us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

As you might have guessed, I have more faith in convenience store sushi than the Left’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy even Ray Charles can see (and he’s dead), the “Party of Science” hasn’t figured out why fossil fuels are still in use today. Not surprisingly, it’s dirt simple: fossil fuels work. No matter how many solar panels you put up, no matter how many Priuses there are on the road, no matter how many windmills you erect, fossil fuels tend to work better than alternative fuels, at least for now. And I say that as someone who has driven through typical Iowa winter conditions with a gas-guzzling SUV passing hybrids stuck in the snow. To be fair, though, the hybrids were traveling up a 0.000000000001 degree incline, so they were really at a disadvantage.

Seriously, though, nobody has been able to figure out a viable alternative to oil, coal, and gas yet. What people have done is build upon the existing framework fossil fuels have built, in some cases literally. Even with these alternatives, fossil fuels are more effective and in some cases better for the environment. (See ethanol for an example of this.)

Put simply, we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet because so much of our economy still runs on it. I’m not just talking about fuel here, kids. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, because we kinda like to power our devices and, oh, not freeze ourselves to death in the winter or boil ourselves to death in the summer. Then, there are some of the byproducts of fossil fuels, namely plastics, that would be the metaphorical rochabeau to our economy if the Left gets their wish.

But no one ever accused the Left of knowing anything about economics.

There is one alternate fuel source out there that has shown to work well independent of fossil fuels, but the Left doesn’t like it, so it doesn’t get mentioned. And that alternate fuel is…nuclear power. Granted, the Left’s opinions on nuclear power haven’t changed since Three Mile Island, but it’s important to note two things. One, nuclear power is currently being used in some parts of the world without there being meltdowns on a regular basis. And, two, the main reason the Left doesn’t like nuclear power isn’t because of their commitment to safety, but rather their commitment to sowing fear and providing seemingly the only answers to “solve” the climate problem.

I call this the Oprah Effect. Back in her heyday, Oprah Winfrey seemed to thrive on the idea she could see all the problems we (i.e. suburban white women) face and come up with a ready-made solution that not-so-coincidentally helped her pocketbook and ego. The Left uses the Oprah Effect to great success on climate issues for the same reason Oprah was so successful in peddling her brand of problem-solving.

Most people are uninformed, gullible, and lazy. (But not you, faithful readers.)

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people have sought ways to work smarter, not harder, and have utilized whatever means available to do so. The only problem with that approach is eventually we think we run out of ways to make things better, so we rest on our laurels, which America has done for, oh, seven decades or so. As a result, our interest in thinking has waned like the interest in people watching Hannah Gadsby do “comedy.” After all, thinking is hard, dammit! So why not leave it to the experts?

Five decades of wrong predictions on climate change should be a clue.

And to be honest, none of the people pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels are experts, either. I still think alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, but until they can become viable alternatives, they are just possibilities. We need to work with what we have, and the eeeeeevilllll fossil fuel companies are finding new ways to extend the life of the industry and minimize damage to the environment. You know what the anti-fossil fuel side has done?

Talked a lot.

Oh, and stoked a lot of fear of an ecological disaster coming in the near future without anything like they predict ever happening.

With this kind of uninformed resistance, I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer.

The Politics of Science

What a difference a couple of weeks make! It wasn’t that long ago that we were told outdoor protesting against overly oppressive state lockdown decisions made by a dumbass Governor where open-carry laws were followed would cause COVID-19 cases to skyrocket! (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t.) Now, we’re being told by the same people that protests against the death of George Floyd (some of which have turned violent and destructive) are totes cool.

And people wonder why I have a healthy distrust of public figures.

It’s clear politics have more to do with these contradictory positions than actual science, which has been a destructive force for decades within the scientific community. From climate change to the number of genders, ideological elements have made it possible for science to defy itself at the same time the Left tells us we need to listen to the experts. Of course, when the “experts” are Leftists, it’s like they’re saying to listen to, well, themselves.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

The problem with politics becoming part of science is the former taints the integrity of the latter. With the scientific method, the scientist work toward finding a conclusion by objectively looking at the results of the experiments used. With politics added into the mix, the scientific method either works backwards (as with climate change) or disregarded altogether if the results don’t come out the way the Left wants (as with genders). As a result, we get studies where the results don’t make sense, which opens science up to (deserved) mockery.

As a fan of science, I take the Left’s perversion of science seriously and, admittedly, personally. We cannot simply ignore it when the science tells us we’re wrong. We either have to accept the results or try again. There is no third option. There isn’t a provision where the results don’t matter if they hurt our fee-fees. Accept or reject are the only choices.

That’s where politics taints the process. There’s an old saying, “The personal is political.” The Left takes this very seriously because it allows them to make anything political with the right framing. Once that happens, they can find/create allies to whatever cause they deem appropriate at the time.

Now, here’s the fun part. Once those causes lose traction with the public, the Left chucks them and their supporters aside. Of course, they will pick these causes and supporters up when it suits their needs (like to blame Republicans for what Leftists did to screw things up). If you question this, let me ask one question: How’s the water in Flint, Michigan, these days?

Not good, huh? My point precisely.

Leftists have always treated the black community as below them in the hierarchy of power, which is why you rarely see blacks in positions of real power within their ranks. They’re always on the stage with white Leftists, but only as bunting, and optional bunting at that. And when black Leftists do create organizations, it’s always as subsidiaries of the main hive-mind.

What does this have to do with the Left’s hypocrisy…I mean change of position on protests? Control (and I’m not talking about the Janet Jackson song). With the anti-lockdown protests, the Left couldn’t control the protesters. They were powerless to stop them, so the Left tried to get people to believe they were dangerous and that a love of freedom is equally dangerous. However, with the protesters of George Floyd’s murder, the Left controls the narrative and can stoke the fires to make the tensions worse. And once the passion dies down, the Left will forget George Floyd even existed.

Just like they forgot about Flint’s water problem.

And just like they forgot about COVID-19 when it came to the George Floyd protests, even after these same folks shouted about how dangerous it was for people to be out in public without masks and social distancing.