Pages

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Cap & Tax Monster Still Lurking

Before you begin reading this article, note that references have been provided below. What I've written is not mere speculation, but rather analysis generated from studying the issue.
Given the evidence of the lack of appreciable global warming in the last decade, the icecaps having recovered and that there are five times more polar bears than there were in the 1940's, you'd think the climate change argument and climate legislation would have been put aside. Any reasonable person might assume that politicians wouldn't want to appear foolish enough to be duped by these grifters trying to slide this sale through without reading the contract or inspecting the goods.

Despite proof of the input data manipulation, exposed communications that indicate hiding real data, and admissions of inaccurate satellite data, the global warming cult forges on undaunted by these revelations. The University of East Anglia and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that seemed to spearhead Al Gore's charge have little or no credibility in this argument and yet they press forward. Indeed, on April, 26 the U.S. Senate is slated to unveil it's Climate and Clean Energy Jobs bill. That's “Cap and Tax” to the English speaking. Our President says it will, necessarily cause our utility rates to sky rocket. Added to that will be the increased cost of everything from coffee to condos resulting from energy use.
Ostensibly ( with great emphasis ) this is all to reduce greenhouse emissions and save our planet. You know better than that and, of course, these snake oil peddlers don't believe that either.

A coalition of “environmental groups” consisting mostly of social change minded people released a “Climate Action Report” April, 7th, 2010 which is, reportedly, to be submitted to the United Nations as United States policy. Who elected them? In reviewing sixty some odd people composing this group I found no climate scientists nor any scientists at all. I did, however, find the Center for American Progress, the Apollo Alliance and activists of every imaginable social change ilk. There are environmental, ethnic, green jobs, race relations, economics, health care, health insurance, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, poverty, religion, women's rights, education, labor unions, globalization and bioethics represented among those offering this action report. Oh yes, and there is Van Jones and John Podesta as well. The problem is, that these groups don't represent fact or science or the majority of America, which should be driving the argument.

Their report says "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

This, of course, is hotly disputed by a large portion of the scientific community.

It goes on to say “Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They're now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.”

Facts repudiating their report are easily found in dozens of real scientific reports on the internet. Anyone who has a sincere interest in “saving the planet” would research just a little and discover that there is something seriously wrong with the propaganda of the global warming and climate change campaigns.
The air we breathe has only 0.039% carbon dioxide. That is considered only a trace gas. We can work with 0.5% albeit, breathlessly. Even if their projected additions of carbon dioxide were to occur, human beings would not be effected to any large degree. Beyond that, it has been shown that plant life would increase consuming a good deal of the added carbon dioxide.

If there is any “consensus” in the scientific community on climate change, it leans more toward the eccentricities of Earth's orbit and the inconsistency of heat radiating from the Sun being the overriding causes of any warming.

There is, of course, a very compelling argument for being good stewards of the our Earth. There is not, however, any compelling cause to spend untold billions and legislating human behavior to fix something over which we have very little control. It is either monumentally arrogant or profoundly ignorant to think we puny humans can lord it over nature and wrestle it into submission.

31,486 actual scientists (9,029 of whom have earned a Phd,) generated and signed a petition rejecting the hyperbole of “global warming”.
The cover letter reads as follows.

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”


Is global warming happening? From my research, I believe it is. Is it likely to be catastrophic? Even with all the hyperbole I had to slug through I became less and less convinced that humans would notice much difference. Is there any reason to spend great gobs of money to fix it? Nope, seems like such an ambitious and costly effort mounted by governments would barely make any measurable change in the atmosphere. The cost in the human condition, however, would probably be epic. I, personally believe that science and technology will take care of this without government intervention in due course.

To be fair, I did search out many references to other scientists who supported the global warming thesis but found too many favoring questionable data or connected to questionable agendas. In any case there were far fewer scientists and climate experts in agreement with the man made and man fixable thesis. (about 1 out of 3) These scientist's solutions are a little too vague in what actual effect their methods of reducing greenhouse gases might entail or what unexpected consequences might result if implemented. If all this money is required to put their solutions into effect, the public deserves a rock solid answer to all those types of questions. Don't you think we ought to have a look at the machine and kick the tires before we buy it? Even the renowned M.I.T.'s frequently asked questions list has answers that are out of date with current data that is reported elsewhere. All in all I agree with the greater number of reputable scientists who characterize this climate change effort as implausible and even absurd.

The question arises; why haven't more people heard about these things on television or in print? Isn't it an important subject to address while the senate is considering passage of legislation? Why wouldn't they want the public to be better informed so they are better able form a more balanced opinion about this climate stuff? Well, you'd have to surmise that the media wants you to reflect their opinion rather than having one of your own. Do they have a stake in the outcome? You bet. Rather, the owners of some media outlets stand to benefit hugely. I wonder if Wall Street is somehow involved.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm going to listen to the real scientists with solid science as their main agenda before I put any faith in a politician or media personality. And that goes double for a politician (past or present ) who has something to gain from passing legislation to spend taxpayer dollars. Many are salivating over the billions to be made in “Green” industries or carbon credit trading. I'm not a global warming “denier”, as they like to vilify. Rather, I am a “rejecter” of government intervention into obviously questionable science and technology.

The unfortunate fact is that the people promoting this climate argument from positions of power are out to get your money and subjugate as much of the population as possible in the process. Yeah, money, power and folks who want to control your behavior, who'd-a-thunk-it? It's an ugly specter masquerading as a “good cause that anyone should gladly embrace.”

How will history judge this gullible generation? If, indeed, human beings continue to get smarter as we evolve, (a premise that I frequently question) will future history depict us as we now view the uneducated, cultish and superstitious people of the 13th century? Are we the same kind of people who believe whatever the leadership puts before us as fact, rushing mindlessly about, enthusiastically regurgitating the beliefs of the current cult master without independent thought? I believe people are much smarter than that, but massively uninformed due to a lack of interest in the news that may have a major impact on their lives. This leads them to be misinformed by the loudest voices heard in the most strategic placement in order to indoctrinate.

I suppose the real question here is, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue saying “There's nothing we can do about it” or “They're going to do whatever they want, it doesn't matter what I say”. Or, will you join others in our awakening populous to stop the erosion of our liberties and confiscation of your earnings. Will you make some phone calls, write some e-mails or plop down and grab the TV remote?



http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html
http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/topten.html
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63F2Q520100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Center for American Progress
http://thelances.org/hr3/CO2paper.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=349
http://www.ipcc.ch/ intergovernment panel on climate change
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 Lord Monckton Video
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/hockey_stick.html

1 comment:

  1. 5X more polar bears?!

    It seems to me that the pictures of polar bears floating away on tiny icebergs is really a symptom of urban sprawl. Shouldn't these polar bears start thinking about multi-tenant housing in stead of seeking out such unsustainable housing?

    ReplyDelete