Another Take On Climate Change

I just got back from a few days at Bethany Beach, De. It was great, particularly the weather. One evening I stood at the crest of one of the dune walkways, providing a nice panoramic view of the beach and the boardwalk. There was a pleasant gentle breeze, no humidity, a slight coldness to the air. It was perfect. In that moment I thought to myself that of all the things I could be worried or concerned about, the very last on my list is global warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it now.

Here I was in what is arguably the epicenter of climate change hysteria: a small coastal town. Al Gore would want to shout out to the oblivious "hey, don't you know that in 100 years this town will be under 10 feet of water if we don't do something now!" Actually just 10 years ago the surf did come up to the boardwalk at certain times of the year. So the town took action by building a large dune and then building up the beach with replenished sand. Today, as you can see by the attached photo, the beach is as wide and protected as it has ever been. Man adapted, and man will continue to adapt. Sure, money was spent and the beach will need additional replenishing over the years; but all of this pales in comparison to the billions of dollars some in government want us to spend on programs, studies, actions, etc that carry no guarantee of doing anything beneficial.

Climate Change and the Hockey Stick

I am a man made climate change skeptic. Climate changes, that is for certain; but I have deep doubts that man is the cause of anything that we are currently experiencing, just like I doubt that man had anything to do with the Ice Age or with the warming that took place some 1000 years ago. If you watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, you would know that much of it revolved around Michael Mann's hockey stick theory. That theory has since been debunked, which should make "green" people at least wonder if this "green" quest is nothing more than a financial boondoggle. For those with an open mind, here is a short videoclip to get you thinking.

Time To Not Get Serious About Climate Change

If I was interested in being politically and socially correct, I would blindly rally behind the global warming cause, joining those who blame humans for any change of weather. I would call for government to outlaw oil and coal, and to invest billions of dollars in alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, which admittedly are much more expensive and much less effective. I really would not care that going "green" would bankrupt our country, send millions of people to the unemployment line, and raise costs for every product out there. That is a small cost for me to feel good about saving the planet, and possibly prevent the earth's temperature from raising .3 degrees over the next hundred years.

I am willing to say it: I do not believe in man made climate change. I cannot say I am skeptical about climate change itself. That would be like saying I am skeptical of air. Air exists, regardless of what I choose to believe. The same holds for climate change. The earth we live on has been changing for thousands of years. Ice ages come and go. In between those ice ages are warming periods. If the earth is capable of shifting into a definitive period of time called an "ice age", it is also capable of shifting into less definitive periods of time when the earth temperature drifts up or down by fractions of a degree. This happened before man burned carbon for energy, it will most likely happen when man relies on some other energy source. Is it possible that the real deniers are those who just don't accept this?

Those who are climate change devotees will say that those who do not buy into man made climate change are anti-science. That could not be further from the truth. We are actually anti-bad science, and there seems to be plenty of bad science out there masquerading as "truth" when it comes to climate change. Likewise there is a lot of bad policy being implemented out there, all based on bad science. Today I recommend two articles that should help you understand why I have not jumped on this green bandwagon. Please take the time to read both articles in their entirety.

F. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at UVA, writes of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project:


What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend.  But this is not global warming.  And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands.  He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming.  And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service.  It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iJI6w7Oz

And Clarice Feldman writes about the impact of biofuel farming in Africa:

The collapse of the London-based company Sun Biofuels, which grew jatropha in the district of Kasarawe for biodiesel, has left hundreds of villagers landless, jobless and in despair. In Mhaga village alone, a quarter of the land was acquired by the company  in 2008, with a promise of financial compensation, 700 jobs, water wells and improved schools, health clinics and roads. But the villages have not been paid for the land, and their neighbors in Mtamba tell the same story of broken promises and unpaid  compensation. Tabu Koba is one of 9 in this village who received no payment for their land.We are very angry.' He says.'My children have left school and have nowhere to farm.'

'The situation in Kisarawe is heartbreaking, but the real tragedy is that it's not unique, comments Josie Cohen of Action Aid. 'Communities across Africa are losing their land as a result of the massive biofuel targets set by [the UK] government.' Legalbrief Environmental

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/two_silly_notions_biofuel_mandates_as_carbon_neutral_and_rhino_horn_medicine.html#ixzz1iJQb9snM

Global Warming

At the risk of sounding like a crazy guy, I just don't believe in man-made global warming. I do believe in climate change. Living in Virginia, where we can get two feet of snow in February and then six months later it can be over 100 degrees . . yeah, climate changes. But it is becoming clear that much of the foundation for the man-made global warming argument is starting to crumble; and if man is not responsible for global warming, then everything that is being pushed on us (carbon credits, cap and trade, moving away from oil, etc) by politicians, environmentalists, and the media is basically a scam. And it is a scam with billions of wasted dollars at stake.

For a quick review of how the global warming argument began and how it got distorted through the years, please read this article.

November 1922

For those who believe man over the past half century is responsible for today's global warming, this Washington Post article from November 1922 may serve as some interest. Let's see, 1922 was nearly 100 years ago. The only thing missing from this article were the dooms day "the world is going to end in five years" fear tactics a la Al Gore. Keep in mind that during the 1970's, a short 50 years after this article, scientists were universally concerned about our being in the midst of a new Ice Age. That shift in climate change was all accomplished without us wastefully spending trillions of dollars chasing a fantasy that we can control climate.

By the way, also check out this article about CO2 emissions, which "finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

7 Reasons Why I Don't Trust Climate Change

7. Anecdotal evidence. When it is 70 degrees in the northeast in January, people claim it is global warming. When it is 50 degrees in the southeast in July, people question global warming. Al Gore uses a photo of a polar bear standing on a small floating piece of ice to scare little kids about the future of the earth (and polar bears). I read where they found the photographer who took that photograph. The photographer said that they were surrounded by all kinds of ice. The polar bear was basically on a joy ride, which made for a fun photo. The photographer had no idea that his photo would eventually be used to sell global warming. The reality behind the image would have told the exact opposite story. I remember hearing an 18 year old student from Alaska testifying before Congress a couple years ago. She was in tears because of all the climate change she had witnessed during her lifetime. Are you kidding? That is the kind of testimony being given before Congress? Anecdotal stories should not be used in the selling of global warming.

6. Where is the real science? Actor and activist Ed Begley says we should follow the peer to peer reviews to get the most accurate scientific information about global warming. With the release of the thousands of emails from Climate Change Alarmists (CCA) a couple months ago, it is clear that people with power in the scientific world were out to "politicize" the data and research, even tainting the peer to peer reviews. Scientists with opposing data, research, and analysis were routinely dismissed and trashed. The central tenet of Al Gore's movie was the hockey stick graft, showing a dramatic rise in temperature over the past 100 years, backing his contention that global warming is man made. Without that graft, Al's argument loses a lot of its punch. Many mathematicians and scientists have made their case disputing the data behind that graft. Al refuses to talk about it. The leaked emails seem to indicate a systemic move to block any data or research that would question what the CCA crowd wants to protect. That is not science.

5. Economics. There is the science side of climate change, which has been politicized with suspect data; and then there is the economic side of climate change. The U.S. economy is carbon based. We need energy, good energy, to be productive and prosperous. Right now that energy comes from things like oil, coal, gas and nuclear means. Relying on wind or solar simply won't cut it. The arguments against carbon based energy is that 1) it damages the earth, and 2) in the U.S. we rely too much on foreign sources for our energy. We pay out too much to these other countries. Of course the people who make this argument are the same people who refuse to let us explore and mine our own oil and coal. Imagine what a boon to the economy it would be if we could go after our own resources? I believe one of the things that is holding back our economy is the government and the CCA crowd putting a stop to anything sensible that would free up our energy needs, which gets to the first point, that carbon based energy is damaging the earth. Here it would be nice if the science was reliable. On the contrary the evidence for man made global warming is just not there, at least not to the degree that it should be trusted or that trillions of dollars should be wasted chasing the possibility of making a half of a degree difference. When it comes to spending money, there are certainly much better ways to enhance the quality of lives, or indeed to save lives.

4. So what is "normal"? Normal body temperature is considered to be 98.6 degrees, One of God's imprints on man is that temperature. It doesn't matter where you live or when you lived, your normal body temperature while alive is 98.6. Now there are slight variations, depending on whether the temperature was taken orally or through the ear or through some other means, but a person doesn't have to worry about variations until they are more pronounced. At that point, when you feel awful, a doctor can come in and help diagnose why your temperature is now 104, and hopefully help heal it. So what is the normal temperature of the earth? Climate change alarmists seem to believe that there is such a thing. The problem is 1) there is no normal universal global temperature that fits no matter where or when you live, and 2) even in a static place like Virginia, climate changes day to day, week to week, year to year. This leads to my next point:

3. Climate changes both fast and slow. I certainly can remember times when it was near 70 degrees out one day and the very next day it snowed. On the opposite spectrum, we have not experienced an Ice Age in my lifetime, but in the lifetime of the earth there have been several variations of Ice Ages. Significant climate change can occur over stretches of thousands of years, just as easily as it can occur overnight. Now, let's figure that an Ice Age is not a good thing for humans, but the warming age that follows is good. Now let's imagine that Al Gore was around during the tail end of an Ice Age. Wouldn't we be hearing the exact same message from him: the earth is warming, the ice is melting, the poor polar bears, the world is coming to an end? All of this gets back to my previous point: what is "normal"? Perhaps the earth is warming to a previous normal, or to a new normal. Who are we in the year 2000+ to say that our time in the earth's existence is the correct normal?

2. Evolution? It is at this point that I am mystified by evolution minded people. The basic tenet of evolution is the survival of the fittest. Another tenet is that species adapt to their changing environment, evolving into something else. If the climate is changing, shouldn't we just let evolution take its course? Maybe the evolution gods have something better in mind for us.

1. The debate is over? If I could ask Al Gore one question, it would probably be this: "Please provide us with the transcripts, either from video or audio, of the public peer to peer debates that you and your fellow alarmists have engaged in with those who disagree with your data and the interpretations of that data? As I see it, Al Gore put out a movie that gave his side of the argument. In that movie he used data, research, video and photo images . . many of which have been disputed and/or shown to be false . . to make his case. With the release of the movie Al declared that the debate was over, which was understandable because at that point Al was ready to reap his millions from this "scam". He didn't want to waste valuable time with debates. It was time to cash in while the cash was flowing. I'm thinking those transcripts don't exist, primarily because those debates never occurred. So what exactly is Al talking about when he says the debate is over. What debate? This is where the media has been lazy. I just don't recall witnessing a series of real peer to peer public debates regarding climate change. Al, did I miss something? Please show us the transcripts. I would love to catch up on what apparently many of us missed.

Global Warming Reading For a Snowy Day

For those of you stuck inside because of the possible two feet of snow expected along the east coast, here is a recommended short article about the global warming hype. Settled science? Two feet of snow?

The Audacity of Copenhagen

Perhaps you have heard that there is a climate change summit taking place in Copenhagen. Thousands of zealots flew in on private jets, renting so many limos that more had to be brought in from neighboring countries, and expending tremendous amounts of carbon . . all for a summit. Undoubtedly many of those attending the summit will justify their journey by saying what they are doing now, while perhaps contributing to the crisis, will ultimately contribute more by saving the planet. In other words, their motives and their work is so pure and holy that it really doesn't matter whether they are being hypocritical. The ends justify the means. This work is so important that we cannot be caught up in trivial issues. And it is so important that we meet in person rather than have our summit through more modern and "green" means, such as online. Imagine that, everyone sacrifices for the sake of the earth by staying home and having their summit online.

This is the same argument Al Gore uses. His work and his message is so important that he must travel all over the world so he can personally deliver it. There is no other way around it. People want to hear from him (hard for me to believe, but apparently true), and they want to hear him in person. All of this does make sense. Just like it makes sense for someone to travel cross country to personally be at their best friend's wedding. Just like it makes sense for a company to pull together it's managers for several days of workshops and training. Just like it makes sense for a family to fly to Florida for spring vacation. In other words, we all have our own reasons for being somewhere in person. We all have our own reasons for traveling, which inevitably, expends carbon; and according to the zealots, inevitably will destroy the earth.

For Al and his friends, their preference would be for you and me to give all of that up, to make our own personal sacrifices. We can no longer freely come and go wherever we want, however we want. But not for Al, or his friends. Flying to Copenhagen for a summit is okay. It is holy after all. Family vacation . . business trip . . not so holy. I think many people would beg to differ.

Man Made Global Warming

John Hawkins does a nice, concise job exposing what can only be called a political and scientific scam: global warming. The big walk away here is that global warming is something our earth had experienced many times before man was even capable of contributing to it. In other words, it is very, very suspect whether man is responsible for whatever warming has taken place over the past century. If man has not been responsible, it seems to me that should change the entire climate change argument a la Al Gore. It should also change the straggle hold these people have placed on our energy and our economy. I've always said that I am 100% behind a sensible approach toward protecting our environment. Clean air, clean water, protecting nature whenever possible, protecting national treasures. All of this comes at a cost though. Being sensible means not imposing regulations and taxes that ultimately drive people into poverty, all to maybe drop the temperature by .1 degree over the next 20 years, especially when these kinds of decisions are based on faulty, politicized data. I'm not a conspiracy person, or a nut, but it sure seems to me that this is all being forced through by people who ultimately want some kind of one world government. What comes out of Copenhagen will be a good example of this. And our country, especially our politicians, seem to be falling for it.

Time To End The Global Warming Scam

Anyone under the age of 25 probably has been indoctrinated with a belief in man made global warming. They have been taught in school and in our media that 1) global warming is unique to our time in the history of the earth, and that 2) man is responsible for this warming, and that 3) changing light bulbs, driving corn run hybrids, and paying carbon credits will save the earth. They have also been told by people like Al Gore that the science is settled, therefore not only is there is no reason for any debate, but dissension will just not be tolerated. This is the gospel truth, according to Al.

I'm reminded at this point of all the talk about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) throughout the Clinton and the Bush administration. The intelligence reports were in and they were all consistent: Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and was ready to use it. We acted on that intelligence, only to find that apparently it was not true. As a result people on the left came up with their infamous rally cry: Bush lied, people died. This of course was nonsense. Bush may have been wrong and/or may have been misled with faulty information; but he did what he should have done with the information he had . . he acted. What if the intelligence ended up being accurate?

This past week we found out that the foundational "science" behind global warming has been made up. We found out that some of the main movers and shakers in the global warming scam have been hiding information that countered their assertions. They purposely set out to quiet any dissenting views. They have generated their own version of a man made crisis, one that was/is certain to cost us trillions of dollars.

There are legitimate questions about Al Gore's intentions and just how much he really believes the crap he preaches. If he really believed the world would end in 10 years if we don't do something now, would he continue to fly in personal jets, live in an overly large home, eat hamburgers? But for the moment, let's say Al really does believe all of this, and that his belief system was built on all the "science" that is now suspect. Are people on the left willing to cry out: Al lied, people died? After all, think of all the people who have suffered because of the limitations hard core environmentalism has placed on them. If the science is wrong and if there is absolutely no global warming impact with burning coal or oil for our energy needs, think of how that would transform our economy and national security. More to the point, if before going into Iraq we were told that the intelligence was wrong, should we have still gone in under the pretense of getting rid of WMD? I don't think so. We are now faced with the same mis-information about man made global warming. So how will we respond?

People under the age of 25 probably don't know what to do with this kind of scam. It goes against everything they have been taught. My guess is that most have never heard a counter argument to man made global warming. It will be curious to see what politicians do with this information. They too have become beholden to interest groups who preach "green", at a cost that could bankrupt our country. Look at California. Hopefully they will have the guts to put an end to anything having to do with cap and trade, or with keeping us from drilling for oil or coal. We cannot survive on wind and solar. We don't need to.

Global Warming

If you want a good tongue in cheek history of global warming, check this out.

Waste Of Gas

If there is one thing liberal environmentalists would like to see happen when it comes to our driving habits, it is carpooling and/or using public transit. Less gas, less pollution, less traffic, smaller carbon footprint . . these are the arguments they use. I can picture President Obama using these arguments himself. But like everything else having to do with Obama, it is do as I say, not do as I do. Traveling to Copenhagen this week on three separate private planes (big planes) are Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama. Three planes. It begs the question: why? Couldn't they use less gas, less pollution, smaller carbon footprint by plane-pooling? Wouldn't that provide a better example to the public when it comes to selling these ideas? It also begs the question: if the president, his wife, and Oprah can take three planes to Copenhagen, why can't I take my car wherever and whenever I want?

I suspect that the president and his supporters would argue "well, he is the president". I realize that, and certainly the expectation is not for him to use public transit. But three planes? Really? To me that smacks of arrogance. They take three planes because they can. Speaking of arrogance, did you catch Michelle's statement while in Copenhagen?

"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days," the first lady told a crowd of people involved in the Chicago project, "so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."

Sacrifice? Again, are you kidding? I'd like to know who the people are she is referring to who believe this is an act of sacrifice by these three, or is it just Michelle who has this view. Sacrifice? Sacrifice would mean traveling together in one plane. Even at that, how can a luxury trip to Copenhagen, pampered like royalty throughout the entire trip, be a sacrifice? And remember, this is paid in full by the American taxpayer. Only in the eyes of Michelle. Arrogance at its best.

Litter

I remember hearing a speaker talk about what it means to be a servant . . a servant of God that is. Part of what it means is not considering yourself to be any better than someone else, or to put it another way, not looking at someone else as being lower than you. What I remember most from this person's talk was when he said that is why he hates litter. He mentioned McDonalds and the tendency for people to leave their tray of trash on a table rather than putting it in the trash can. He said that when you do that, you are basically saying that there is someone else around who is lower than you who will come along and pick up your mess. To me, what the speaker said makes sense, and it is something that I personally try to live out in my own life, whether it is cleaning up after myself in McDonalds or by not leaving trash anywhere where someone else would have to come and clean up after me.

All of this to bring you these photos: one from Obama's inauguration, the other from this past weekend's Tea Party event in Washington. Both events brought hundreds of thousands of people to Washington. The inauguration was understandably mostly a liberal crowd. The Tax Protest was mostly a conservative crowd. Liberals love to talk about the environment. They also love big government and happily turn over responsibility for their own lives over to that big government. Conservatives are big believers in smaller government and personal responsibility. Liberals believe there will always be someone else who will come along and clean up their mess, conservatives don't. Dare I say that liberals believe in being a servant to that big government, conservatives believe in being a servant to God. And the result? I think the pictures tell you pretty clearly. The difference is pretty stark.

For Those Still Clinging To Global Warming

I remember while in high school I would go out on my own and pick up trash along the street. Nothing organized . . no fanfare . . no volunteer credits . . I just disliked litter. Same goes with the back parking lot at our school. It was constantly littered with broken glass. No school employees ever cleaned it up, and so I would go out on my own every few months with a push broom and a big trash can and clean it up in the early evening when the lot was empty. I say this to convey that i do care about the environment. I don't like to waste water or resources, mostly because I don't like to waste anything. I like clean water and a clean roadside and clean air. I would hope that would be true with most people, even environmentalists who are clinging to and scaring children about global warming. The thing is, I am just not convinced that whatever global warming is incurring is a problem. Climate changes, it always has and it always will, regardless of what we as humans think we can do to affect it. The thought that we are in the process of spending (wasting) billions of dollars to feel better about ourselves is crazy. Like I said, I hate to waste anything, including money. There is no question in my mind that there are a small number of people who will get very wealthy from this . . Al Gore being one of them. Below is a link to just one more small article that should make you wonder if all this global warming hype really is a bunch of nonsense.

Surprise! Trees Grow Bigger On CO2

Global Warming . . You Have To Smile

Headline on today's Fox News website:

"Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather"

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

You have to admit that this is pretty funny.

Is The Debate Really Over?

Global Warming/Climate Change ala Al Gore is a religion. Like all religions, there are a number of facts you can point to, but there are gaps where you have no facts to lean on. This is where faith comes into the picture. Faith allows you to believe even when you might not have a reason for that belief. Most religions tend to be dogmatic about their beliefs. If I as a Christian believe that Jesus is the only way God established for salvation, and that Jesus is God; that is something that I cannot necessarily prove . . so it is a matter of faith. But if I really do believe that (as I do), then how could I also believe or accept some other religion's belief that directly contradicts this belief? Bottom line is that I cannot. So for me, the matter is settled. There really is no reason for debate. And yet I, as well as other Christians, are more than willing to have that debate with people who do not share my (our) beliefs. I'm not inviting a debate because I am still weighing my own decision. The debate is to hopefully sway others toward my way of seeing things, as well as to refine the argument.

So getting back to Global Warming and specifically Al Gore. Al has been saying for several years now that the Global Warming debate is over. He says that we are beyond that point, that we now need to act on what he believes we as humanity must do, regardless of what the consequences of those actions might be to humanity. He refuses to debate, despite the FACT that there are notable, respected scientists and climatologists who strongly disagree with many of Al's conclusions. Al of course knows what is right, and he carries all the dogmatic, judgmental overtones that you will find in many religions. His is the only way, all others be damned. There are many very serious thinkers out there who want to publicly debate Al Gore. Once Al got his movie out, and won his awards, I'm sure he figured why mess up a good thing with a debate. Why risk having people actually look at his data and his conclusions, and then actually question him? Al stands to make even more money from this scam in the future. I guess I don't blame him for playing it this way. It's too bad because we will be paying for all of this for many, many years to come.

More Global Warming Hype

I'm not sure what draws me so much to this global warming issue. I'm certainly not concerned that the earth is in crisis mode. I think it is more the hypocrisy of those who preach global warming, as well as my own concern about what it will mean if and when we allow people like Al Gore control our energy policies. Al Gore, in response to an environmentalist who dared question the reality of man made global warming, said to this man: "I want to be polite to you," Gore said, in turning him down. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

So is the debate really over? Paul Driessen, in an article titled "Global Warming Bait and Switch", writes this:

"No one yet knows what solar energy fluctuations, planetary orbit shifts, recurrent oscillations in ocean currents, cloud cover variation and other natural forces combined to cause these potent climatic changes. But there is no evidence that they have suddenly been displaced by human CO2 emissions.

Growing numbers of scientists say the climate change debate is far from over, and global warming was never a crisis. Over 650 certified meteorologists and climate scientists are on a US Senate compilation of climate cataclysm skeptics – and 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they dispute claims that humans are causing climate change, and the changes will be disastrous."

I would encourage you to read the article. The debate is not over Al.

Global Warming Hype, Part 3

Here, in more detail, is additional information regarding the scam known as global warming or "climate change" (amazing to me how the fact that our climate changes is considered a crisis), as well as more on Dr. Harper's testimony to a Senate sub-committee. I know there are people perhaps reading this that probably think I am a kook for not buying into this scam, but the consequences of following Al Gore and his minions is just scary. Billions of dollars will be thrown at a problem that doesn't exist. People talk about man made global warming, but this is really a man made crisis scam. For those who believe the debate is over . . it is just beginning. I'm personally ready for a sensible debate, based on facts. So far we have been fed a steady diet of bad information from people who start with their own agenda and conclusions, then go out to find data that supports those conclusions. That's okay, we all tend to do that. There is a problem though when the data they use is just wrong, or they disregard other data that contradicts their agenda.

A new documentary is coming out soon: Not Evil, Just Wrong. It counters Al Gore's film. Let's see how the media and schools treat it.

Global Warming Hype, Part 2

I've come to believe (very strongly) that what might ultimately destroy the world is not supposed global warming, but the consequences of policies created in order to fight supposed global warming. If you get the impression that I don't believe in global warming, you are correct. It basically doesn't exist, at least not in the Al Gore sense of global warming. Fortunately more and more scientists are stepping up to make this argument. And they are using science as their weapon, rather than fear and emotion. What we are in store for if the global warming zealots (yes, it is a religion) get their way is unbelievably heavy regulation and taxation on energy that will certainly stifle our economy, if not destroy it. People like Al Gore will get rich at our expense. Huge amounts of money will go toward alternative fuels that are unproven and/or inadequate to provide for our energy needs. Can we become more energy efficient? Sure. Should we? Sure. I mean, why not? I'm all for conserving resources, living simple, and being good stewards. I like for things to be clean. But where the zealots are wanting to take this country (and the world) is getting a bit scary. Their data is largely wrong. Their interpretation of the data is largely wrong. And yet their interpretations are preached about and blindly accepted in schools, in the media, and in Washington. Can you handle a counter argument? Here is a piece about William Harper, Physics professor at Princeton. Below is one of his statements to the U.S. Senate on February 25, 2009:

"The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."

Global Warming Hype

I've always been suspicious of the whole global warming hype. I know for some people that may sound naive or misguided, but there is too much evidence and too many people who know what they are talking about that also see no merit in the global warming crisis as expressed by Al Gore and his buddies. And no one in the media seems to want to listen. For the past 10 years the earth's temperature has not risen by even a fraction of a degree. NASA has reevaluated their numbers and recently altered them in a manner that contradicts the global warming hysteria. Do you ever hear about this?

John Coleman is a meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. He has been on his own personal crusade to counter the global warming hype with what can only be called facts. This video is an excellent interview with Coleman as he systematically dismisses many of the arguments presented by the global warming alarmists. It makes you wonder how the religious zeal behind global warming ever got to the point we now find it. Ten years from now when we are most likely talking about global cooling, where will Al Gore be, and will he be held into account for all the money and attention that is being invested into this hypothetical crisis?

Ethanol is proving to be a poor substitute for gasoline, and the cost of corn and related biofuels is now soaring as these crops are being used for fuel rather than as food. Back when Congress was voting on the implementation of Ethanol into our fuel stockpile, the vote was so close that it took a vote by Vice President Al Gore to break the tie. So we have Al Gore to largely thank for the non-environmentally friendly consequences of farmers cutting down fields of trees in order to grow corn . . and for the price of corn rising so much that the price of its byproducts are inflating the overall price of other foods.

I'm all for conservation. I don't like to see things go to waste. But the direction our world seems to be going in concerning "eco" this and "green" that borders on craziness. And more and more it seems like good intentioned people with what seems like good ideas are actually causing more problems for the environment as a consequence of their ideas. Do yourself a favor and watch the above video.