Margarine and Global Warming seem to have little in common. But these two strange bed-fellows are examples of how settled science can come out and bite us on our behinds.
When I was a kid there were clinical studies published with great fanfare indicating beyond a reasonable doubt that butter produced from cows was unhealthy and should be replaced in one’s diet with margarine.
This bandwagon was soon embraced by Madison Avenue who touted “Everything is better with Blue Bonnet on it” and later gave us, “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” in an attempt to fool consumers into thinking substitute products, although they were yellow in color, were just as satisfying as the real stuff.
Later, this type of thinking morphed into encouraging purchase of Whip and Chill artificial desert topping (beware of imitators) or sage advice given to buy only genuine Naugahyde and polyester as allegedly other synthetic products didn’t work so well.
Of course this settled science was proven to be ridiculous, but no one back then questioned such postulations as three out of four doctors who believed margarine was healthier than butter could not possibly be wrong. But they were. A generation later, this debate was renewed as new studies indicated the trans-fats found in artificial spreads were actually worse than the real thing and was a leading cause of heart disease.
About the same time as Brittany Spears sang, “Oops I did it again,” 40 years of known scientific fact was dispelled. No one searched for the doctors who vouched for fake butter. Not even product liability attorney’s who sue corporations at the drop of the hat took up a class action suit for those individuals who had to endure with having to consume lobster with drawn margarine all those years. The charade was over.
In much the same way the theory of global warming has been embraced (mostly by environmentalists and progressive liberals) as the wave of the future some fifteen years ago. According to so-called experts the vast consumption of fossil fuels has led to increased CO2 in the atmosphere thus resulting in warmer climates and weather changes that adversely affects mankind.
Under this scenario, ice caps are to eventually melt along with sea level rising. To complete this picture, famine, floods, droughts, hurricane’s and other abnormalities of nature are to become more frequent and destructive than similar events that have occurred in the past.
To ward off impending environmental catastrophes, these concerns championed by former Vice-President Al Gore, resulted in new environmental laws and regulations being enacted throughout the United States.
Great theory but it fell short of expectations. Scientific data did not support the settled science that Global Warming was supposed to inflict at the rate predicted by the “Henny Pennies” of the world. The problem was that government has too much at stake for their policies to be reversed. While reducing water and air pollution has had excellent results, many other environmental measures have done little good.
As examples we find today groundless opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, hatred of energy companies from the left (except when soliciting campaign contributions) and plans to build stack and packing housing in Project Development Areas (PDAs) throughout California. Despite all the money that is being wasted on doing complicated Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) carbon footprint reduction is by and large a fantasy.
There, I said it, scientific data does not support construction of high rise dwellings in urban areas doing much of anything for the environment or reducing pollution. Despite the onslaught of propaganda from 3 out of 4 scientists (or should we say political scientists) the Global Warming Theory has pretty much been debunked in recent years. So much for settled science.
Despite this reality, Progressives and their radical environmentalist buddies are not about to give up the fight. Instead they have changed their tune from Global Warming to Climate Change in order to justify their support of governmental policies of subjugating people and gaining more control over people’s lives. Now settled science is telling people to just be quiet.
Climate Change is a real winner as it does not need much of any scientific backing. All it says is that because of the influence of man, nature is changing. There is no way to verify or refute such a theory as weather conditions, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes have gone on as in the past. They will continue to happen in the future as well.
It’s not as if a vaccine similar to what has virtually eliminated polio can be invented that can prevent tornadoes or hail storms. Even though we live in a high tech society, this does not give us the power to control the forces of nature or play the role of God so to speak.
But there are many positive things that can be done despite phony settled science:
1. Improve the efficiency of motor vehicles to reduce the use of non-renewable fossil fuels eventually replacing them with solar energy. (This has been partially accomplished in California greatly reducing air pollution).
2. Balance the need to reduce industrial pollution with the benefit of job creation. Have government be a partner with business rather than being an advisory.
3. Conserve water and build more dams and storage facilities to protect against years of below average rainfall. (This does not mean in California’s case to trash the Delta building diversion tunnels for water transfer to SOCAL)
4. Do a better job of recycling industrial and consumer waste to preserve resources.
5. Be open to new forms of clean energy production. At the same time embrace existing technologies including fracking and nuclear power which is still the cleanest form of energy production on the earth.
6. Make environmental policies in the United States non-partisan manner not being right vs. left or Democrats facing off against Republicans. Compared with other both developed and third world countries, we are wasting a lot of valuable monetary resources with political bickering which in recent years has helped to stagnant job creation in our economy.
I won’t be around fifty years from now to take part in the environmental debate that will undoubtedly take place then. It is almost certain people in the year 2065 will be laughing about the Progressive’s in the early 21st Century who thought they could save the world by constructing subsidized housing nearby transit hubs to reduce what will be proven to be fictional carbon footprints.
Of course by that time people will likely not be able to read about climate change as the public schools at the present rate of decline will likely by then eliminate the requirement to memorize the alphabet or be able to read. Robots in this society will likely perform such tasks. Of course in such a world no one will know the difference as everyone will be a winner and diversity will rein supreme!
The good news is that people will still be consuming butter even if three doctors out of four doctors (or good critics) will say, “I can’t believe its not Margarine.” Hopefully we will still have our sense of taste.