Those words, spoken by Grouch Marx in the movie Duck Soup, are essentially what global warming/climate change advocates are asking the rest of us to do: believe them and not our own two eyes. The proponents of warming/change have no proof except their computer projections to back up their theories, and one can make a computer do and report anything one wants it to report if you load the right code into it. So, given that there is no empirical evidence to back up the warming/change theory, these skallywags then ask you to suspend the use of your own senses and intelligence and just accept their proposition.
One can see that water is not flowing in the streets of coastal cities, but warming/change believers will still tell you to “not believe your own two eyes” and to instead believe them regarding their “rising oceans” assertion, because neither you nor they can ever verify if glaciers are melting (proof of glaciers melting is a scientific undertaking, but we have scientists on one side saying that ice is melting in the polar regions, and the other side reports that ice is amassing at the largest volume ever in those regions). So who should you believe? Or should you suspend belief until actual evidence is produced and all scientists agree on the evidence? When we have “evidence” on both sides of an issue contradicting each other, the wise person will reject both assertions and depend on his/her own two eyes.
Considered differently, warming advocates believe that the temperature increase in the next 50 or 60 years will only top out at about one degree above today’s temperatures, so considering that poor farmers trying to grow crops for their families in India or Ghana will experience a longer growing season if the temperature increases to the level anticipated, this would benefit the poorest people in the world by allowing them to produce more food for the families, and that’s a good thing. So a logical person might reach the conclusion that by wanting to halt the supposed warming trend, warmers only want to hurt the poorest people in the world by limiting the crops they may be able to grow in the future, when an increased crop yield would help raise them from the poverty they’ve always known. This angle makes the warmers sound kind of racist to me, to intentionally keep the poorest and most hungry people on the planet in that poor and hungry state forever, while the rich warmers in America (Al Gore comes to mind, with his private jet and multiple monster residences) only get richer by the year selling this fool’s idea to the gullible.
There are very few people who would allow someone to tell them that fast-moving traffic will not hurt them if they step off the curb into the traffic, because these people depend on their own two eyes to determine what’s truthful and what’s a lie, and these same people should also depend on their own intelligence, their senses and their own two eyes, to test whether what’s being shoved at them by big-government advocates is true or not.