Conversations about the Shakespeare Authorship Question with those who have not studied the issue are a very predictable, four-step CIFA process. They begin with:<\/p>\n
1. CONTEMPT.<\/strong> Contempt is supposed to scare me off, but it doesn\u2019t work. So then we move on to the next step:<\/p>\n 2. INCREDULITY<\/strong> I end up pointing out that the incredulity isn\u2019t much of an argument, which forces people to actually come up with something or leave me alone. If they manage to come up with something, we move on to:<\/p>\n 3. FLACCIDITY<\/strong> That may not be the argument they use, but it\u2019s usually a one-sentence disgorgement of whatever measly, flaccid nugget of conventional wisdom they have at their disposal. At least it\u2019s sort of an argument, but it\u2019s always an argument that\u2019s very easily refuted. Since their reasoning rests on a flimsy foundation, the final step is inevitably:<\/p>\n 4. APATHY<\/strong> “Why do you care so much, anyway?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s the question I want to address.<\/p>\n With regard to Shakespeare, the answer is that understanding the author vastly increases an understanding of the plays. Suddenly Shakespeare has context, history, a point of view. The traditional view of Shakespeare is vapid and confusing \u2013 apparently, this guy\u2019s brain was a receiver for random broadcasts from the Muses, and he just channeled the plays and the poems without ever letting his own life or limitations get in the way. <\/p>\n In any case, I find it to be a fascinating topic which can yield a much deeper appreciation for the works Shakespeare left behind.<\/p>\n This post, however, is not really about Shakespeare. Surprise! It\u2019s about Global Warming.<\/p>\n See, the CIFA method applies to all Global Warming arguments, too. (Who knew Global Warming and the Bard had so much in common?) Let us review. We begin with:<\/p>\n 1. CONTEMPT<\/strong> The word \u201cdenier\u201d is filled with such contempt that it\u2019s often very difficult to move past this stage. The problem is that the word \u201cdenier\u201d is so intellectually dishonest that, from the outset, it has already sullied the dialogue almost beyond repair.<\/p>\n What, exactly, have I \u201cdenied?\u201d<\/p>\n The Al Gore brand of global warming alarmism requires an acceptance of a whole litany of tenets, and uncertainty surrounding any one of them throws the whole preposterous theory out of whack. So slapping the \u201cdenier\u201d label on anyone who raises any questions along the way effectively bundles the argument into a single, tidy, yes-or-no package. So either you think the globe has warmed unusually quickly due solely to humanity\u2019s irreversible pollutionary damage and that massive governmental intervention to dismantle industrial society is the only solution, or you don\u2019t.<\/p>\n Quibbling about any of the numerous details \u2013 is this rate of warming truly unusual in comparison to global history? Is mankind solely or even primarily responsible? What percentage is our fault? Is it irreversible? Would Cap-and-Trade or any other colossal government program fix the problem, or even put a dent in it? \u2013 earns you the \u201cdenier\u201d label every step along the way.<\/p>\n But assuming you can move past the name calling, you get to:<\/p>\n 2. INCREDULITY<\/strong> So many stupid assumptions here. The fact is that there is no scientific consensus on the entire \u201cdenier package,\u201d i.e. the globe has warmed unusually quickly due solely to humanity\u2019s irreversible pollutionary damage and massive governmental intervention to dismantle industrial society is the only solution. When you start to look at where the consensus is, the alarmist position unravels very quickly.<\/p>\n There is consensus that the globe has warmed a degree in the past century, yes. I\u2019m fully in sync with that bit of consensus. But that\u2019s really as far as it goes. Is that an unusual amount of warming for a century? No consensus. How much is mankind\u2019s fault? The consensus seems to be that some of it is, but as to the exact amount, there\u2019s no consensus. What\u2019s the optimum global temperature we ought to be shooting for? No consensus whatsoever. Is it irreversible? No consensus.<\/p>\n So what about government intervention to fix it? Well, the consensus there is damningly clear \u2013 Cap-and-Trade and other proposed attempts to limit carbon emissions would have absolutely no effect on global temperatures, but many think we should still do them anyway as some sort of \u201cfirst step.\u201d That kind of thinking leaves me<\/em> incredulous. But that doesn\u2019t stop the argument from moving to:<\/p>\n 3. FLACCIDITY<\/strong> Once \u201cconsensus\u201d fails and it becomes clear that pretending to know what other, smarter people think doesn\u2019t really address the question, it becomes time to unleash some select flaccid factoid that doesn\u2019t really say anything, either, like the one I just quoted.<\/p>\n OK, just for kicks, what if last year was the warmest year on record? We\u2019ve only been keeping records for about 100 years, and given technological limitations, those records don\u2019t really become reliable until relatively recently. Does that mean it\u2019s never been warmer in the history of the globe than it was last year? No, that\u2019s clearly nonsense. Does that mean every year has been warmer than the last? No, that\u2019s nonsense, too. In fact, even the \u201cconsensus\u201d scientists are forced to concede that there\u2019s been no discernable warming trend since 1998. So what we\u2019re left with is a disputable \u201cfact\u201d that doesn\u2019t provide any useful information at all. Which is why we move on to:<\/p>\n 4. APATHY<\/strong> “Why do you care so much, anyway?\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n And that, my friends, is the real<\/em> question I want to answer.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n We have as many or more natural resources in this country than any other country on earth. We have enough oil in the oil shale in the western United States to fuel the world for generations. We\u2019ve also got gobs of clean-burning coal, natural gas, and untapped reserves of conventional oil all over the place. If we were to develop all of that full bore, then, virtually overnight, we could kickstart this moribund economy, cut unemployment in half, slash gas prices by 2\/3, free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil that too often comes from countries who hate us, and use the revenue generated from this massive burst in economic activity to fund Social Security and Medicare benefits for the Baby Boomers and beyond without breaking a sweat.<\/p>\n We won\u2019t do it.<\/p>\n Why<\/em> won\u2019t we do it? Well, because we\u2019ve been told that we\u2019re going to warm the planet too much in the process.<\/p>\n The direct costs of global warming alarmism \u2013 notably some form of carbon tax or carbon credits \u2013 are staggering enough on their own and quickly run into the trillions. But what happens when you couple those with the opportunity costs? How much wealth is left literally buried in the ground because we\u2019re afraid of what recovering that wealth will do to global temperatures? How many children in developing countries go to bed hungry because we\u2019re not willing to tap the natural resources that could improve their standard of living? Occupy Wall Streeters, the wealth you\u2019re craving isn\u2019t just in the pocketbooks of the 1% – it\u2019s in the 99% of our natural resources that you refuse to touch. A cost-benefit analysis quickly reveals that the price of climate alarmism is far higher than any civilized society should be willing to pay. Doesn\u2019t that matter? Isn\u2019t that a problem? Shouldn\u2019t all of us be concerned about the answers to these questions?<\/p>\n Why do I<\/em> care, Mr. Global Warming Alarmist? The question is why do you<\/em> care about an ill-defined, scientifically shaky doomsday scenario more than the immediate well-being of billions of people?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Conversationsabout the Shakespeare Authorship Question with those who have not studied the issue are a very predictable, four-step CIFA process. They begin with:1. CONTEMPT.<\/strong>\u201cYou idiot! Of course Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare! Look at the name on the play! See what it says? It says 'William Shakespeare' right there! Who else would have written it, ... Read more<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\u201cYou idiot! Of course Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare! Look at the name on the play! See what it says? It says ‘William Shakespeare’ right there! Who else would have written it, pinhead?”<\/p>\n
\n\u201cYou really<\/em> believe<\/em> that? Really? Even though none of the smart, cool people believe that? How can you wake up in the morning and be so out of step with what the cool people believe?”<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWell, de Vere couldn\u2019t have written the plays, because he was dead. So there.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWho cares? We have the plays. Why does it matter who wrote them?<\/p>\n
\n\u201cOh, you\u2019re one of those Global Warming deniers. I\u2019ll bet you don\u2019t think the Holocaust happened, either. You make me sick.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cBut look at how many scientists agree with us and not with you! You\u2019re not a climate scientist – you\u2019re not qualified to disagree! How can you go against the scientific consensus?!\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cLast year was the warmest year on record.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWhy is this such a big deal to you? We all know we need to move to green energy in the long term, so it would be good to act as if we\u2019re warming the globe even if there are still unanswered questions.<\/p>\n