Beware the Boogeyman Alarm
National Review,
by
Kyle Smith
Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly,
1/10/2020 5:04:45 AM
It is a founding principle of Boogeyman alarmism that it be couched in vague terms. Only a novice at scaremongering would tell a little brother, “Give me your candy or the Boogeyman will come and sew your eyelids closed Thursday night at 6:07 p.m. Central Time.” Boogeyman leverage relies heavily on uncertainty. All predictions of Boogeyman activity must be non-falsifiable. Just say, “The Boogeyman will get you” and leave it at that.
Some understand this principle better than others. Back in the years before 2010, federal workers at Glacier National Park in Montana put up signs warning that all of the glaciers would be gone by 2020 because of climate change.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
MattMusson 1/10/2020 6:39:56 AM (No. 284152)
When Al Gore was born there were 130,000 glaciers in the world.
Today, there are only 130,000 left.
36 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
worried 1/10/2020 6:53:05 AM (No. 284167)
Yes, in 1923 the AP gave the glaciers 25 years, so in 1948 they were what? Still here? Arizona Republic said in 1936 the glaciers would be gone within 25 years. 1961; still there? 1952 AP report gave them as much as 50 years. 2002? And then there's Al Gore. Enough said about him. And AOC and her comment. Well, she doesn't have the intelligence of a sea sponge.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
swampfairy 1/10/2020 6:59:52 AM (No. 284173)
The article is interesting, but the missing words in the text are distracting. A good proofreader would
be a blessing here.
9 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
walcb 1/10/2020 8:35:10 AM (No. 284245)
I had to read it again and didn't see many if any proof reading misses. #3 must have been replying to the previous bibbity boo story.
4 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 1/10/2020 8:56:33 AM (No. 284266)
The problem is, there are always "experts" around to justify the reporting. The thing is, experts are often wrong. In academia, that's OK. In science, you postulate, test and gather evidence, and reevaluate. Many initial assumptions are found to be wrong. The assumption is, science starts over. It's common. It's OK AS LONG AS the science stays in academia. Over time, some populations gather a weight of supportive evidence evidence that leads to a declaration of the theory as fact. That is still no guarantee. It is not unusual, over time, to find some "proven" theories are wrong. The process is painstaking and slow.
The problem is, politics and media who have urgency, shortcut and corrupt the process. Someone postulates something and the media and politicians declare it is truth and want to take action based on that truth. They want to take our freedom and spend our money in service of the their truth. When we ask for more careful study, we get pushed with the URGENCY of the truth and a deadline. We get these "dates" by which we are doomed. Usually far enough out for the people that make them to have slipped off the radar. Then the new people on the scene glibly slip the date out again. We ask why THIS date is any more certain but there is this URGENCY and people's memories are short and they are too busy to get bogged down in it anyway.
Plus there is an inertia in politics. Once a cause is declared an events are set in motion, it is almost impossible to reverse them. That is why it is so hard to reduce federal spending. Once a purpose for spending is discovered, the government is loath to stop spending it. The same for taxes. That is why the Reagan and Trump tax cuts are so amazing. They overcame Washington inertia. That is also why the bureaucracy hates them so much. They have the power to overcome the STATE.
Politicians are mostly "All In" on climate change. It brings them power and money and has the veneer of science. It is too complex to nail down the real behavior of the climate. Everytime there is a bad weather event they can point to it and claim "climate change", whatever that means. That is why the network news has a severe weather spot EVERY NIGHT. It's a boogeyman made manifest. The connection to climate is bogus but they imply it is related. More scare. More urgency. All lies.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Strike3 1/10/2020 10:29:28 AM (No. 284376)
These unknown Boogeyman prognosticators expect to be believed just because they took a science class in the eighth grade and did just as well in that as they did in math and English. If they want to maintain a sense of credibility they need to bring in an expert like Greta Thunberg, show her the glaciers and get an accurate date.
The sad part is that when this park is once again covered in an impenetrable layer of ice and snow, these worryworts will be long dead and their dire predictions will have been forgotten.
It's comforting to know that government workers are the same everywhere, stupid, greedy and not fast enough to run a turtle race.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
weejun 1/10/2020 10:59:57 AM (No. 284397)
Boogeyman notice: some years from now (see how I learned from the article?), when we are no longer able to trust ANYTHING uttered by a scientist, we will be wondering when it was that science became so politicized, and that numerous scientists would prostitute themselves by fervent advocation of political agendas such as "global warming" and "climate change."
1 person likes this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
earlybird 1/10/2020 12:02:00 PM (No. 284466)
When we spent a week in Glacier National Park - on both the American and Canadian sides - a few years ago, the glaciers looked fine. Much of this alarmism was fed to us during the Obama years, pulled out of thin air as was much of the rest of what they were “concerned” about… They reveled in junk science, made-up science, or simply the made-up. It will take a long, long time to clean out the minds that were polluted by Obama & Co.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
pensom2 1/10/2020 2:38:30 PM (No. 284631)
"Proofread" is one word. In the article, "Internet" lacks a capital I in the second line of the third paragraph, but is capitalized later in the same paragraph. I found no other typo's, but I read this sort of article pretty fast, and easily overlook missing words. I agree that errors in print and online articles are distracting and annoying.
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 1/10/2020 6:51:34 PM (No. 284839)
Reply #1's comment was brilliant! Likewise #6's last sentence. From the deck of the S. S. Pacific Princess, I watched some glacier calving. Ship's captain explained that the beautiful glacier was expanding, NOT melting. As to having to read the hastily written articles with gaps and typographical errors, I'm glad it is no long my job to proof read the writings of ''professionals.'' Everybody is a writer now that we all type, send, and then try to proofread. It should be noted that read writers, like Conrad Black, for instance, proof BEFORE publishing.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MissMolly"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)