Im­pos­ing a ‘cli­mate con­sen­sus’ on us all . . .

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary -

It’s a funny thing about “con­sen­sus.” Of­ten we are told that be­cause so­ci­ety has reached a “con­sen­sus” on a given topic, de­bate about it should be all but ex­tin­guished.

Those who are not part of the “con­sen­sus” are of­ten ridiculed and marginal­ized. Those who are part of the “con­sen­sus” feel per­fectly jus­ti­fied in im­pos­ing their view on the rest of the coun­try — even the world.

For ex­am­ple, next month there’s a United Na­tions con­ven­tion in Copen­hagen at which the pow­ers that be plan to rein­vent the way the world is gov­erned on the ba­sis of a “con­sen­sus” that man-made, cat­a­strophic cli­mate change is an im­mi­nent threat to the planet.

Of course, first you have to ask your­self: “Is there re­ally a con­sen­sus among the world‘s pop­u­la­tion that man’s ac­tiv­ity on the planet presents an im­mi­nent threat to sur­vival?”

The an­swer, of course, is no. Not only is there no con­sen­sus, I’m not even aware of any ef­fort to con­duct sci­en­tific sur­veys to de­ter­mine if there is con­sen­sus.

The sec­ond ques­tion you have to ask is this: “Would it mat­ter if there were such a con­sen­sus?”

The an­swer, of course, is no. It wouldn’t mat­ter be­cause the world is not and should not be gov­erned on the ba­sis of con­sen­sus. In fact, the world shouldn’t be gov­erned at all — un­less or when God Him­self de­scends from heaven with a shout and im­poses His own righ­teous, all-know­ing judg­ments upon it.

Yet, next month, we’re told, be­cause of “con­sen­sus,” de­ci­sions were. Both are merely ex­cuses for ac­tions that oth­ers want to im­pose on the rest of us.

“Con­sen­sus” is also used as an ex­cuse right here in the United States to in­doc­tri­nate your chil­dren into “cli­mate change” hys­te­ria. I doubt there is a pub­lic school any­where in Amer­ica not teach­ing “man­made, cat­a­strophic cli­mate change” as fact. How do they get away with it? Well, they’ll a “con­sen­sus” once among sci­en­tists that the sun re­volved around Earth.

So, clearly, “con­sen­sus” — even among the most en­light­ened sci­en­tists of the day — can be and has been wrong. Yet, what strikes me as most an­noy­ing about the use of “con­sen­sus” in po­lit­i­cal, spir­i­tual and sci­en­tific de­bates is that it is only used when it is con­ve­nient to use. sen­sus” as a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for bring­ing it back.

In ad­di­tion, vast ma­jori­ties of Amer­i­cans cel­e­brate Christ­mas ev­ery year. But try us­ing “con­sen­sus” as a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for of­fi­cial cel­e­bra­tions of the hol­i­day in pub­lic schools. “Con­sen­sus” then is a phony ar­gu­ment used by gov­ern­ment and gov­ern­ment­friendly elit­ists to ma­nip­u­late the pop­u­la­tion into do­ing what they’re told.

Amer­ica was not founded as a land of “con­sen­sus.” It was founded as a land of free­dom, based on lim­ited gov­ern­ment and the rule of law, not men. It was founded as a con­sti­tu­tional repub­lic, not a democ­racy. It was founded as a coun­try, im­per­fect as it is and was, that at­tempted to pro­tect the rights of mi­nori­ties rather than to al­low tyran­ni­cal ma­jori­ties to run roughshod over them.

Re­mem­ber that when­ever “con­sen­sus” is cited as pri­mary rea­son for dra­co­nian, life-al­ter­ing, world-chang­ing ac­tions. It usu­ally isn’t true, and it wouldn’t mat­ter if it were true.

Joseph Farah is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.