Global Warming

This article created on St. Patty's Day, 2007 (Thus the Green Backdrop :-) Updated 3-25-09

Video: Weather Channel Founder John Coleman is just one of thousands of scientists who are too seldom heard in the agenda-laden media. Once at YouTube watching the video, be sure to see how many other videos are there talking along the same theme. All of that makes it clear that the case is hardly closed on the subject. Interesting that the alarmists and the politicians who benefit from fear-mongering are so eager to cease all debate on Global Warming. It's politically incorrect to even question the idea, isn't it?

The Global Warming Scare was Started by the UN, not Scientists

They were also, by the way, the same people who started the "Next Ice Age Scare" thirty years ago that was supposed to be our doom.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." [H. L. Mencken]
 

The Agenda Finally Revealed

For years, when I have discussed this subject with people, many have asked me

"What's the harm in cutting back a little on our consumption? Even if all the hype on Global Warming is exaggerated slightly, couldn't we err on the side of caution?"

My initial answer to that is to beware when politicians ask us to make lifestyle changes. This issue has become so politicized, so you have to wonder about - and question - the motives of the politicians involved in the debate. It should come as no revelation to anyone that a politician will twist anything - even something so seemingly apolitical as environmental concern - into their agenda. What's more, with a little knowledge of the historical push-and-pull between dominant political ideologies, you can figure out that what is called "anti-consumption" by a well-intentioned environmentalist takes on a whole different meaning for a political animal...and we are all political to some degree or another. Anti-Consumption, in politic-speak, means "anti-Capitalistic." 

Despite the fact that most of the twentieth century was spent fighting over Capitalism, you don't hear much overt "anti-Capitalism" rhetoric anymore. But all those people didn't just disappear. They have learned that they can accomplish the same goals - and be challenged less often - by using the modern environmentalist's "anti-Consumption" agenda 

Al Gore Shows Truer Colors on Capitol Hill This Week

As such, it should be no surprise that Al Gore is the standard-bearer for the Global Warming hysteria that is sweeping the nation. Just yesterday he spoke on Capitol Hill, and in that speech - for the first time that I can remember - he is starting to thin the veil that separates environmentalism from anti-capitalism. He was more overt in his approach, calling for (here it comes, finally) "carbon taxes" for big users of fossil fuels. And for the illegalization of standard light bulbs. But here's the real kicker: he has offered people who use "more than their fair share" of energy the opportunity to contribute to a fund in which he has a financial interest! Amazing. It's like the selling of indulgences all over again. Guilt people who have big houses and private jets (like Al; Johns Kerry and Edwards; Huffington; Michael Moore...all somehow exempted despite their own calls for equity) into paying to have their sins forgiven. That's one of the many reasons that more people are starting to call modern environmentalism a "religion;" and why I say that

It's the same old class envy that has brought down every free society - all over again

Despite all of Al's conflict-of-interest, no one in the mainstream media questions him on all this. Again, this is partly because it is politically incorrect to question anyone who speaks for the environment. Yet we must, because

Global Warming's anti-Consumption rhetoric is just the latest ploy in the anti-Capitalist's attempt to limit how prosperous a family should be allowed to become.

The Jury is Still Out on Global Warming

Al also said - on Capitol Hill - that "the debate on Global Warming is Over." Far from it! There are many scientists out there calling the whole movement a hysteria, and if you Google Global Warming you get just as many hits that say the whole thing is "hysteria," a hoax, and pseudo-science, etc. People like Michael Crichton are writing exhaustively researched and well-referenced books against the whole notion.

Pseudo Science, at Best; Party Politicking at Worst

For the people who would look at the "research," know that there is zero direct observation of Global Warming as a result of "greenhouse gases." The whole shebang is based on computer model theories. That's right, the same computer models that can't tell you accurately what your weather will be for the weekend. They want you to believe that they can use those computer models to predict weather a thousand years from now.                                                                    

The Earth Is Always Changing

For Al Gore to expect you to swallow the whole idea of Global Warming just because he shows you some "before and after" pictures of Patagonia or Kilimanjaro is to believe that the Earth is never supposed to change. Those of us who have taken a closer look at Global Warming don't question that the Earth is somewhat warmer now than it was thirty years ago. What we take issue with is blaming mankind for it. It is a well-documented fact that global temperature trends go in cycles - typically of about thirty years each.

Small wonder then, that thirty years ago the same "Chicken Little" pseudo scientists were telling us that the next ICE AGE was going to be our doom! The very opposite threat than they want you to buy into today. Wonder what happened to those people, and I wonder why we don't hear the media looking back on them critically? Perhaps doing so would cast doubt on the relevance on the current generation of Chicken Little climatologists.

Why Do So Many Experts Jump on the Global Warming Bandwagon, Then?

It's easy to see why an "anti-consumption environmentalist" wants to limit the proliferation of vehicles and emissions, but why are there always scientists around to support them? Perhaps it is because a "climatology" expert sees the opportunity for job security, fund raising and grants from the alarmist activist groups. After all, if the public thinks his analysis is vital to survival, you are more likely to listen to him and make him relevant / pay-worthy. Is it not human nature to justify one's job to others? And it isn't bad for the ratings at The Weather Channel, either.

And That Brings Us Back to Politicians

The reason that it all becomes so political is that candidates see the activist groups as voting blocks. It's one more issue that they hope to get on board with to lock up some needed votes. But, for the record, I am glad Al Gore is doing what he is doing. He makes the absurdities of Global Warming a lot easier to point out.

It's interesting that Al Gore gets the credit for being the eco-friendly politician out there when he lives in several different "high consumption" mansions and flies everywhere in private jets that use more fuel in a one way trip than a year of SUV driving. Same for the . This is what we mean when we say that "limousine liberals" are quick to criticize others for the same behaviors that they themselves will not give up. It's a "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mentality that is not worthy of our respect or attention.

But even more interesting than all of this hypocrisy is the fact that the media never reports on President Bush's revolutionary eco-friendly house that he occupies when in Texas. He had that built decades ago, before the current fashionable hysteria over "consumption." The fact that all these truths are not pointed out in the media is one of many examples of their transparent bias. I know that lots of folks who read this paragraph are trying to dismiss it because they think I'm "just defending my politician." Ironically, anyone who would do that is trying to paint me as partisan! If you have read my other pages on this site, you should know that I am not a "Bush" disciple. I am pointing out some foibles I see in some people who just "happen" to be Democrats.

Why are so many Americans trusting pop media sources so much? I ask myself that every day. Perhaps because it's easier than research. Perhaps because what they say fits an agenda to which pop culture is sympathetic.

Some Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore

• The world - and all planets - change. They are not static creations. Even the crust of the Earth creeps around; and we had ice age / global warming cycles that went back-n-forth long before the invention of SUVs.

• An increase in solar flare activity was OBSERVED during the most recent "warming trend"

• Our August 2008 Fall-like weather (unseasonably COOL) was likely due to the fact that that month was the first in 100 years without a single solar flare. Why didn't any of that get reported on the news?

• That a warming trend on other planets in our solar system at the same rates observed here on earth. How do you blame mankind for that? Okay, in the case of Mars, I concede that we did put an SUV up there.

• If fluorocarbons are so harmful to the atmosphere and are causing "Greenhouse Effect," then why is it that volcanic eruptions - which are perfectly natural, by the way - have not trashed the atmosphere? One volcanic eruption releases FAR more fossil fumes and fluorocarbons than all the cars - and SUVs and private jets you fly, Al - that have ever been operated combined.

• There is no documented evidence behind the "Greenhouse effect" and it's causing warmer temperatures. What there IS documentation on is an increase - over the last thirty years - of increased solar flare activity and a greater intensity of the sun. Why don't we hear more about that? Because there is no room for blaming mankind in that model. And environmentalists want to blame mankind and his "consumption" first and foremost. It's their religion. If you don't believe that such people are religious fanatics on the subject, just read their own stuff. I have, and it's full of phrases like: "this will change your life!" and "I have a new purpose!" Yikes.

• Showing us pictures of Patagonia "before and after" is not scientific at all. You are showing people an "EFFECT," Al, but not a "CAUSE."

• The Kyoto Accords are an anti-American ploy to gain a measure of control over our economy and bring us down a notch or two. We did not sign up for Kyoto because we are not going to follow it without some hard facts to support human influence on this slight warming trend! Kyoto, after all, would negatively impact our economy and give some control of economic policy to international entities that (understatement to follow) do not have America's best interest at heart. Their antipathy towards us is the result of long-standing international jealousies about our prosperity. The fact that you, Al, have an anti-capitalist track record and a love for the U.N., does nothing for your credibility on Kyoto. It makes those of us who look critically think you are just touting your party line of globalism.

• The Earth has ALWAYS changed in cyclical patterns. Using this to further your political agenda is not leadership - it's manipulation of the masses for the sake of votes.

• The Chicken Little variety of scientist kind of fades away before long, so don't hitch your wagon to him. The Ice Age alarmists just faded away without anyone in the media asking what happened to them. Again, no critical look even in hindsight. That's why I call this a zealot-like belief. Because it lacks critical analysis. Similarly, what happened to the people who were trying to tell us that the Gulf War oil derrick fires that the late Saddam Hussein set would trash the environment? What these people miss is that the Earth is master-crafted and very adaptable. If it could talk, it would tell us "I am not as fragile as you think. Give me some credit. You are not going to kill me by choosing paper or plastic, you trifling little humans!" I have to say here, for the people who are trying desperately to find fault, that I do not mean we should feel free to trash the planet. See my Environment article.

• There are many scientists who question the theory of Global Warming. It is far from being universally accepted, as the media would have you believe. Why is the media biased in their reporting on the issue? That too, is another article, but suffice it to say that they have a political agenda just like the rest of us. 95% of the media leans in one direction. But you already know that. That polling has been around for some time now.

• And Al, You did not invent the Internet either, by the way!

"To Disagree is Not Hate-Speech"    --from a bumper sticker I wish I saw more of

Respond to this and see other responses at my new blog! For this article, go to http://marconglobalwarming.blogspot.com/

Related Articles

My letter in response to Rock and Ice Magazine's anti SUV article Re: Global Warming and High Mileage Cars: by Marc

Czech President Klaus: "The Environmentalist Movement is the Modern Equivalent of Communism."

For a great - and exhaustively documented - read on this subject, pick up Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Or Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist . Buy both below....