We’ve long known we were going to die unless we stopped spewing that plant-sustaining CO2 into the air. The thing is, though, my botanical sources tell me the plants are fearful that they’ll die if they don’t stop spewing that human-sustaining oxygen into the air. Our task is clear.
With the issuing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on February 2, waxing climactic about the climatic is the order of the day. The esteemed, government-funded scientists with no agenda who rendered the study inform us that man is almost certainly responsible for rising temperatures and, furthermore, that dramatic climate change is unstoppable. But, after seeing various luminaries sound the alarm, I think I can confidently say that, hell’s bells, we’re darn well gonna try anyway.
And it’s about time. We’ve long known we were going to die unless we stopped spewing that plant-sustaining CO2 into the air. The thing is, though, my botanical sources tell me the plants are fearful that they’ll die if they don’t stop spewing that human-sustaining oxygen into the air. So our task is clear.
We must beat the plants.
I’m tired of the lies. I remember when I was a wee lad in grammar school and they warned us of an upcoming ice age. That wasn’t as scary as the talk about the killer bees, but why, teach, oh, why did you hide the truth about melting glaciers, rising oceans and vicious hurricanes? I suppose the ice age fiction was less unsettling to young minds. At least we could look forward to extra snow days.
This is why I won’t sit idly by and watch today’s prevarications fobbed off on the next generation.
Can you believe I actually heard some craven, callous individuals try to rationalize away our destruction of the planet with the fancy that weather is cyclical (1500-year cycles of warming and cooling)? So thick is the propaganda that now an elaborate fiction has been woven to convince us that Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, could actually be wrong about global warming. Why, it just makes you hot under the collar. Now I’ll share what I’ve uncovered about the machinations of malevolent manufacturers’ minions.
In a tale worthy of Hollywood, some “scientists” are peddling a story about a geological interval occurring between 750 and 600 million years ago, which they fancifully call the “Cryogenian Period.” They tell us that during this time the Earth was completely covered by ice and snow. Moreover, they’d have us believe there have been numerous ice ages since then, with the last major one ending about 12,000 years ago and causing glaciers to extend as far south as Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Outrageously, their fiction involves the notion that these alleged events were followed by warming trends that sometimes initiated intervals in which glaciers were completely absent from our planet, all without industrialization, as if we’d believe this beautiful blue orb could experience such wrenching changes without man’s meddlesome hands.
This is an insult to our intelligence. We all know that before the curse of humanity – and especially prior to industrialization – the Earth was a pacific place, where birds sang and fish swam and there was love and liberty, serenity and solidarity, and the lion lay down with the lamb.
Continuing with this weather cycle con, we’re also told that between 1550 and 1920 there was a “Little Ice Age,” a time that saw increased glaciation in the Alps. We can easily put the lie to this, however, for during part of this period CO2 levels were rising, yet, we are to believe that temperatures were dropping?
Conversely, it’s also said that there were times when CO2 levels dropped but temperature increased. It is to laugh.
Even the government is in on this charade. We know that anthropogenic glacial melt-off will cause rising sea levels that will inundate Florida and other low-lying regions, such as the Netherlands (don’t you realize our inaction could result in the destruction of the prostitution and drug capital of the world?). So, right on cue, the National Park Service claims that during glacial periods Florida’s sea level was as much as three-hundred feet lower than today, and during the peak of interglacial ones it was one-hundred feet higher. This, all without man’s influence? Poppycock! I bet these are probably the same people who tell us 98 percent of Renaissance painters were white males and that the US wasn’t founded by anti-Christian, ACLU lawyers.
Then, I found pro-plant propaganda being disgorged by the odious Center for Global Food Issues. These miscreants actually sing the praises of higher CO2 levels and say,
. . . a warmer planet has beneficial effects on food production. It results in longer growing seasons — more sunshine and rainfall — while summertime high temperatures change little. And a warmer planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts . . . Infrared satellite readings show that the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CO2. Worldwide, vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999 — despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses . . . When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.
And they’re not alone in this subterfuge. The National Center for Policy Analysis carries water for the flora as well, echoing these sentiments and making the bold claim that a desire for greater plant yield is why botanists pump CO2 into greenhouses. Even more astoundingly, this organization states that until just recently plants might have been suffering from CO2 deprivation.
Don’t you see what’s going on? Those innocuous looking organisms you so lovingly nurture in their pots, as you provide water, sunlight and fertilizer, have designs on our civilization. Haven’t you ever watched the Day of the Triffids? I tell you, we’re locked in a battle for survival itself with the plants.
Let not your heart be troubled, though, my friends. The great teacher, the man who in a way exemplifies vegetative activity, Al Gore, is on the case with his keen intellect and sage stewardship. Why, I hear he’s going to make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth titled Presidential Aspirations in the Balance, in which he will illustrate the direness of our predicament by demonstrating how he can fry an organic egg on his head in Bangor, Maine, at sunrise. Here, too, though, crafty climatologists muddy the waters, as they claim their research shows that Earth’s temperature rises an average of half a degree every time Gore gives a speech.
Of course, these ardent apologists for industrialization try to put a happy face on the CO2 molecule, but even they can’t deny that the gas levels are rising. So, lo and behold, they try to sell us the line that it’s the result of natural processes.
For instance, a vile propagandist named Phillip V. Brennan wrote a piece in which he mentions there is now much more geothermal activity beneath the ocean floor than scientists had suspected. Ostensibly, this process heats up the seas, causing them to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Brennan even tries to explain away our more mercurial weather, quoting a colleague who maintains that,
. . . it is not global warming that’s causing the oceans to heat, it’s heated oceans that are warming the globe and setting up a scenario that includes among its consequences more and increasingly violent hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards.
Yeah, sure, next he’ll tell us tsunamis are caused by underwater earthquakes.
Anyway, this Brennan character has no credibility. Despite the fact we know that every scientist agrees with the anthropogenic global warming thesis, he claims that a petition was signed by,
. . . over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.
Next, we hear the Earth destroyers’ answer to why our polar ice caps are melting. They point out that the ice caps on Mars are probably melting as well, which is supposed to vindicate the idea that natural cycles are the cause.
But there’s something they won’t tell you, information I risk my life by divulging.
There’s actually a civilization of greedy little green industrialists on the red planet, who drive SUVs, heat their saucers with mahogany and teak, smoke fine cigars and are mean to children and old people. And the only reason this is kept secret is that free traders want our shores inundated with their cheap goods, which are brought in through Area 51.
I now ask you to compare the dubious claims of the industrial apologists with the aforementioned facts. I think it will be clear where the true sanity lies.
The truth is, as Mr. Gore would say, inconvenient. We just don’t want to accept that we’ll have to radically alter our lifestyles; why, it’s ridiculous to think we can maintain our love affair with the combustion engine. As Gore told us in Earth in the Balance, the automobile poses a most grave threat to mankind. And, no, wise guys, he didn’t say that because he spent time in a car with Ted Kennedy at the wheel.
So I advise you all to follow the lead of French President Jacques Chirac, who found time between mistresses to warn us that, “We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible,” as he called for a “revolution” to save mankind. Besides, there is grave concern that Hillary Clinton’s personality may melt.
As for me, I’m going to go out and kill a plant. Now, what will I wear? Dang, the weatherman got the forecast wrong again. . ..
SD@SelwynDuke.com
http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Read more articles by Selwyn Duke
When Mother EARTH's friends noticed her temperature climbing a few decades ago, some thought she was running a fever.
They consulted Dr. KYOTO and his advisers in N. European universities with their extensive experience in documenting air pollution coming from North America.
Their prescription was to target Corporate America and force it to radically reduce CO2 emissions. They didn't care that this would be the equivilent of the medieval practice of BLOODLETTING, since CO2 is a major source of nourishment for Gaia's forests and gardens.
Europe sighed; and agreed to the limits set by Dr. Kyoto and his advisers and for the past five years they have reduced their CO2 emissions beyond the 'prescribed' treatment, despite the impact on photosynthesis.
Science based GREENS in the UK looked elsewhere for the cause of Mother's rising temperatures. They found it in the composition of the Greenhouse layer. It was water vapour, or as NASA termed it, the 800 LB gorilla in global warming.
Somehow Dr. Kyoto never consulted space scientists or simply choose to leave out the component that made up 90% of the Greenhouse layer gases.
The British and Swiss Greens did research and found out Mother Earth's temperature increase coincides with increase in Aviation traffic 50 years ago. Europe despite 5 years of 'bloodletting' still has rising temperatures, and the answer is to restrict emissions even further.
In Maine, Dr. Littell and his interns have prescribed the same 'bloodletting' of CO2, endangering Maine's vital biomass; and when questioned about when Mother Earth's temperature will return to 'normal' simply say 'trust us' and wait until 2070.
Which of us wants to wait FIFTY YEARS when there is a 'cure' for her fever that will reduce her temperature by a full degree in under a week!
Younger scientists with different backgrounds have discovered the cause is AVIATION emissions directly into the GREENHOUSE layer, and have an astonishing climate engineering experiment to prove it.
After 9/11, all aviation traffic was halted for nearly a week.
The greenhouse skies were cleared of heat blocking water vapor and cirrus clouds; and the earth cooled by a full degree Centigrade astonishing skeptics and encouraging others like the EUROPEAN UNION to tax aircraft emissions as a way of forcing the aviation industry to adopt low emission's technologies.
British aviation has already started on this path, and Sir Richard Branson, billionaire entrepreneur and owner of VIRGIN AIR has just invested $100m in developed LEA's and jet bio fuels.
Progressive nations like Germany, following the lead of LUFTHANSA, and CANADA are backing off on carbon trading schemes….one doctor lets too much 'lifeblood' from their patient and sells it to another doctor. Money changes hands..you get the rest.
So Why should the Maine Legislature endorse this failing prescription of REGI.?
Comment by fjh | February 13, 2007
Here we go again . . .
. . . arguing the issue. A ‘60s counter-culture radical Leftist once said, “The issue is not the issue; the Revolution is the issue.”
As Duke points out, there was a time in the '70s when a new ice age was predicted because some scientists noted a slight drop in world temperatures for that decade. Lots of government grant money went into studying the possibility of this new ice age (and what to do about it).
I experienced this phenomenon firsthand. Wanting to explore the possibility of designing a neural network to support a government program, I went to a presentation on one already being developed for another program. About 2/3 of the way through the presentation, I wasn't clear on a technical detail and asked a question. Turns out, I knew just enough to be dangerous: the presenter’s answer was, "Well, to be honest, this isn't really a neural network we are developing. We had to call it that to get the funding."
I have just received a revelation in an exchange about global warming from another blogger on another site that, "The problem is that 'global warming' stands in rhetorically for a host of non-theoretical ecological concerns …"
Like the new ice age and neural networks, global warming is just the latest "sexy" fad that can mean anything and gets funding to satisfy a constituency who wants it to be true in order to justify more government spending and control over our lives.
So there you have it. Global warming is not the issue; the revolution (ever bigger government spending) is the issue.
Comment by sedonaman | February 13, 2007
Perhaps you aren't aware of the scale of the political movement Gore and MOVE ON have financed ..suggest you goto http://theclimateproject.org/ and see how many 'educational' seminars they've got organized in every state….How many of you know that Gore & co. mailed out 50,000 INCONVENIENT TRUTH DVD's to teachers around the U.S….political propaganda posing as environmental science.
In New England the REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE has reached juggernaut proportions in statehouses and their draconic schemes to restrict CO2 and enact global carbon trading are being rubber stamped .
Bend over and enjoy it…nothing else you can do!
Comment by fjh | February 14, 2007
I have to completely agree with sedonaman and his analysis, but it was also an amusing article. Without a doubt, money is the chief cause of global warming and that’s money as in “government funding” or “beautiful taxpayer dollars” money. Many conservatives will see liberal ideology as the root cause of the global warming hustle and want to verbally thrash the Liberal Devil, but, bottom line, it’s just for the money.
And, unlike ideology, money is a very useful thing to have, you can spend it on the kids’ braces, make a payment on the Beemer, buy a wide screen television; there’s a thousand wonderful things money can acquire for humble scientists. Which is why it’s so surprising, given our capitalist society, that we immediately suspect ideology or the standard liberal blue sky perspective as the underlying motives for these periodic treasury raids. What’s wrong with money as the motive and the only motive? How does that old song go? “First I look at the purse.”
If the money isn’t forthcoming soon, the next act in this comedy will be to invoke the modern Oracle at Delphi, namely, the courts. The Intelligent Design folks learned that the hard way. Using hard science rather than theology, the ID folks spent days in a Pennsylvania courtroom a year ago smacking evolution theory back and forth across the mouth. But, what did the evolutionists do? Refute all their scientific objections with even better science, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is the only possible explanation, make some concrete predictions using evolution theory that actually turn out to be true?
Nope, the evolutionists invoked the consensus opinion defense. This defense lined up a band of credentialed experts in front of the judge, the judge asked them if evolution is the only possible explanation and isn’t intelligent design theory just a lot of superstitious hooey. To a man, the experts all nodded vigorously and replied: “Yup, that’s what we believe.” Did scientific facts win the day? Not really, since the judge wasn’t qualified to determine what conclusions the facts supported. What he determined was that the evolutionists believed the facts supported their conclusions and only their conclusions.
So now evolution is the Top Dog, the theory with the only bona fide legal claim to explain biological development and origins. Global Warmists couldn’t have failed to notice this victory which explains their heavy emphasis and talking points on what the “experts” believe, not on what conclusions the facts actually support. As with evolution, the stakes are the same, who gets the money to practice their science. All that lovely grant money, oceans of greenbacks shoved at scientists to study the problem and find solutions, book royalties and fee supported speaking engagements sponsored with taxpayer bucks, jobs at government agencies staffed only by those right thinkers who loyally support Global Warming – it’s a thing of beauty.
Will “Global Warming Caused Primarily by Man” become settled law? If the first test case can be won, subsequent cases will have precedent to rely upon. As a diversionary tactic to disguise their motives, a group of scientists will be sent forward to publicly moan to the media about how science shouldn’t be decided by judges, how adjudication of scientific findings by a layman corrupts the intellectual purity of science. Even while happily filling out their grant applications, scientists will lament being reluctantly forced into the courts to convince a skeptical public what they know to be true.
In the end, we’ll have to give them some money or get no peace. Which is why it’s proven science that money and only money causes global warming.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 14, 2007