A distorted and debased science is being used to advance the fraud of global warming.
I have been witness to the complete subversion of science in the service of an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism.
In the Middle Ages the Church determined what “truth” was. Today the Green Church seeks the same power. From the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 15th century, civilization experienced a period of ignorance and superstition. Globally, via the media and the classroom, a distorted and debased science is being used to advance the fraud of global warming.
The challenge is to say “no” when everyone else is saying “yes” to global warming.
There is no dramatic warming of the earth. There is no indication of a near-future warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the growth of forests, crops, and everything else that is truly green. Indeed, climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, rather than precede, warming cycles. They are not a trigger. They are a response.
During the United Nations’ Bali climate conference, a hundred prominent international scientists released an open letter warning that any attempt to control the Earth’s climate is “ultimately futile” and would constitute “a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”
“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.” The notion that mankind has any impact on climate or weather is absurd.
In November, in Valencia, Spain, delegates from more than 140 nations agreed to what they and the media echo chamber that disseminates the global warming lie, called “an ‘instant guide’ for policymakers stating more forcefully than ever that climate change has begun and threatens to irreversibly alter the planet.”
A science that can barely predict the weather next week is being perverted for purely political purposes.
Having followed the IPCC since its inception and the environmental movement in general for decades, I can tell you that what we are hearing is a shrill message of desperation coming from those who fear that people around the world may yet reject the global warming lie. An Associated Press report said that the draft and coming IPCC report “is intended to launch a political process on international cooperation to control global warming.”
How do you control something that is not happening?
The IPCC proposals will lead to “cap and trade” laws that will impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions, something that reflects human activity, from exhaling to the making of steel, the harvesting of crops, the heating of one’s home, and virtually all forms transportation except bicycles.
Why do all of the proposed controls aim at crippling the industrial advances that underwrite the success of Western nations in particular and improvement of human civilization everywhere?
In Bali, there are voices calling for a global “carbon tax.” It would be collected by the United Nations and we know how well they handle such funding. The Oil-for-Food fiasco is but one example. The funding of the Bali conference is another.
Wouldn’t limits put on the United States and European nations be instantly cancelled by emissions from nations such as China and India that are exempt from the Kyoto agreement? The answer, of course, is yes. Doesn’t the failure of the current agreement and the billions in fines it portends for signature nations suggest still more failure?
Despite this, there is legislation making its way through the U.S. Congress that would impose cap-and-trade limits on every industry and business in America. At a time when the U.S. dollar is falling in value and our national deficit has skyrocketed, why would Congress even consider anything that would harm the economic engine of the nation?
This is, however, the same U.S. Congress that refuses to permit exploration and access to our national energy reserves, leaving us dependent on imported oil and natural gas while at the same time calling for “energy independence.”
If I were to devise a plan to destroy the greatest economy, creator of wealth, center of innovation, and exemplar of individual liberty that has ever existed in human history, I would patiently create fear of a global disaster involving the one thing over which humans never had and never will have control, the earth’s climate. I would then propose a “solution” that would cost that economy billions in “carbon credits” to keep it from occurring.
What the former Soviet Union and its failed Communist system could not achieve in some 45 years of the Cold War, the environmental movement is seeking to achieve in its place. By undermining the economy of the United States and Western nations with draconian limits on CO2 emissions, those behind this effort will create a world ripe for a single ruling government composed of unelected bureaucrats whose only purpose will be to feed at its trough.
The single greatest determinant of the Earth’s climate, the Sun, will continue to shine, but the world will be plunged yet again into the darkness of ignorance and submission to the false religion of environmentalism if the global warming lie succeeds.
ACaruba@aol.com
http://www.anxietycenter.com/
Read more articles by Alan Caruba
"Why do all of the proposed controls aim at crippling the industrial advances that underwrite the success of Western nations in particular and improvement of human civilization everywhere?"
The only way for Marxism to succeed, it would seem, is for capitalism be made to fail.
Comment by sedonaman | December 17, 2007
Interesting how Mr. Caruba uses distorted and debased, uh, statements, to supposedly undermine the science he so wishes he would go away?
"There is no dramatic warming of the earth. There is no indication of a near-future warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the growth of forests, crops, and everything else that is truly green. Indeed, climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, rather than precede, warming cycles. They are not a trigger. They are a response."
There is the entirety of Mr. Caruba's argument: four declaratives with no basis in facts, and a statement about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere that is so "distorted" that it's actually laughable. Hahahahah. Heh.
CO2 does indeed exist in our atmostphere in minute amounts relative to other gases, but to say, as he does, that it plays a 'minimal role' is ridicules. CO2 is the gas that keeps the heat in - it literally is the blanket that keeps our planet warm. In case you haven't noticed, our moon is a silent rock, and Earth would be too without CO2 in our atmosphere. So 'Global Warming' caused by CO2 in the atmosphere does exist - it's what helped create the conditions ripe for life as we know it to evolve.
Now, it really doesn't take much chemistry and physics to understand that when you increase the amount of a gas or gases that trap heat in an atmosphere, you're going to get, duh, more heat. Even Al Gore is able to grasp this. Now, Mr Caruba is correct that the Earth has gone through periodic warming and cooling epocs, alot of them, it turns out, having to do with the weather trying to regain an equilibrium after some cataclysmic event like a mega-volcano or an asteroid.
This is, as far as we know, the first time global enviroment will change course for the most part with input from man, and we will have to learn to live with the results.
Of course most of you who are still paying attention to people like Mr Caruba know by now that he is not really saying "no" to global warming, for this half-assed paragraph and it's unsupportable conclusions are discarded immediately to focus on what he is most interested in saying "no" too: doing anything about it.
Comment by Chasm | December 18, 2007
“Why do all of the proposed controls aim at crippling the industrial advances that underwrite the success of Western nations in particular and improvement of human civilization everywhere?”
Why keep whining and not advocate the market approach to energy independence? Any true market would take into account of the overall cost, including environmental, so what's the problem with reforms that include this true cost?
Petro-Coal is dead. Archaic fuels for a past age. At this point, there seems to be nothing but upside for all sectors if infrastructure had to be re-built to accommodate renewables. Why not put your money on the inevitable next wave and help America lead the world once again?
Comment by Chasm | December 18, 2007
Help America lead the world once again….at what cost? Renewable energy sources aren't exactly cheap, and completely shutting down the current system in favor of a new one right away that utilizes the expensive renewable energy sources is economic lunacy. Gradual change as technology improves is probably the best way to go about shaping the future of America when it comes to energy consumption.
Coal still provides America with electricity, as does Natural gas. This is how it has been and this is how it will be for at least the near future; anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.
Comment by Jekken | December 19, 2007
At what cost? What is the cost of doing nothing? No one said anything about shutting down the current system "right away," but whinging, and whining and dragging your feet, as Mr Caruba does, is not the American way either.
Renewables aren't cheap - and they tend to be and inefficient use of energy - but solar is free, dude. A new company has just announced it is going to market a new solar cell panel that is manufactured much more cheaply and efficiently than before. It would have been nice if we had been doing this research and had this done 10 years ago, but now is OK. Retrofitting houses for solar will indeed cost money - but will create jobs in both the manufacturing sector and the house building/contracting sector. If you want to call it 'gradual change,' fine, but don't stick your head in the sand like Mr Caruba and pretend we don't need to do anything.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
Chasm asks: “What is the cost of doing nothing?”
I don't believe you can answer that question better than anyone else. But, let me ask your question with another. What is the cost you think you’re averting? If the cost of averting exceeds the cost of doing-nothing, then doing-nothing is the wiser course.
There is as much chance of the extreme IPCC predicted global temperature rise as a drop by a similar amount (should sun activity subside in roughly the same time-frame). Your question further supposes it is within our power to control global-warming; whereas, these proposals only target limiting human carbon and CO2 emissions on the supposition that will halt temperature rise (or, at least, keep it from rising more than 1 degree). Estimates to cap emissions range from $350-billion/yr to over $1-trillion/yr over the next 20-30 years. This does absolutely nothing to stem the natural rise of CO2 that will occur anyway. The geological record proves CO2 has always lagged just behind temperature. Or, to put it another way, higher temperature stimulates natural CO2 production as well as CO2 being a greenhouse gas; and this natural rise occurs at about the same rate as the observed rise. That says cutting emissions now is rather like getting the genie back in the bottle when he’s no longer interested.
Suppose, now, that sun activity does fall off and, instead of continuing to rise, global temperatures drop 5-degrees. Compound that with success in halting atmospheric CO2 at 550ppm, and the global temperature could drop another 1-5 degrees. So, now, we’re in the deep freeze, heating costs skyrocket, deaths to cold exceed all expectations from heat-stroke, and we’re out some $7-trillion to $30-trillion (plus interest) we might have had for coping. What then was the point in throwing all that money at a problem at the extremes of our power to predict? What, then, is the true cost of averting?
Next, what is the cost of both capping emissions at 550-ppm (about 50% higher than now) AND controlling natural CO2 such that the cap can never be exceeded? Answer: no one knows; except it would be many times higher than our estimates of controlling man-made emissions alone. Cost-estimates for this sort of thing are notorious for being much too low, so the picture we get is one of global-bankruptcy.
There is a much smaller chance a comet or large meteor will strike the earth than the Gore-type scenarios will ever happen. Should a comet hit, however, the effects would be both predictable and out of all proportion to global-warming. The cost of prevention is less than for global-warming, but still astronomic. Should we not, then, bankrupt ourselves in the senseless pursuit of preventing that possibility? How about preventing the sun from ever going nova? The threat to human life from infectious diseases is far larger than global-warming potential (forgetting the Gore hype), but can be addressed, in some part, at reasonable cost if we drop some of the ecological silliness. Terrorism has so far taken more life than we can realistically expect from global-warming (unless, of course, you take as gospel we’ll all stay put as the water rises over us). Nuclear-Iran, -Pakistan and -North Korea, the border invasion and associated violent-crimes, a rash of school- and mall-shooters, sub-Saharan slave-trade, genocide, suicide-bombers, rocket & mortar attacks in global hot-spots, &c are all both real and within our means. Surely, those are problems more worthy of our effort and checkbooks.
You have asked us this question so as to put the responsibility on us. However, we are not the ones proposing the world be turned on its head – you are. Therefore, it is your responsibility to answer both questions (and other questions) before demanding others ante up.
Bye the way, solar cannot possibly fill the void fossil-fuel will leave behind. All the renewables taken together can only provide a fraction of our needs. Our consumption is growing; so, no matter how many panels and windmills, you can never catch up that way. The only energy source with that kind of potential is nuclear; and, until the anti-nuclear crowd gets off its broken-record, we will get just that much closer to a real energy crisis. The rest of the world is developing nukes and laughing its collective butt off America chooses to rely on costly, noisy wind-machines, hopelessly inadequate solar panels, LED lighting guaranteed to make us go blind, wind-up toys, and similar nonsense. Let’s see – maybe we can rig up some human-powered generators under our desks to make just enough electricity to power our computers, LED lighting, phones, and heaters; ditto for our home appliances. And, as a side benefit, we’ll cure obesity! Just don’t ever stop peddling.
Comment by Bob Stapler | December 23, 2007
[…] Dhimmies and Dhimmitude and Elders Gelezen and Lafbekken Logica and Looney Left and Oorlog en Vrede and Politiek and Politiek Binnenland and Politiek Buitenland and Politieke (over)Correctheid and Propaganda & Anti-Propaganda and Terreur and Wetenschap & Politiek and Wijsheidjes nederkrant 10:57 am […]
Pingback by Verelendung is de game… global warming is the name… A marxist new world order is the aim. « NederOpinie | December 24, 2007
All:
Sent to me by a colleague, below is a link to a very interesting Senate Report. It is long, but the Introduction alone makes the case for the a plausible alternative and balanced view on the matter of global warming. I wonder if we'll see anything in the Leftstream media?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Comment by sedonaman | December 24, 2007