The Global Warming Myth and Business as Usual..

Well.. now that the election has been decided, and I took some time out to blow off some steam.. I suppose this is as good as any to get back to the normal, more topical format of this blog. I've been meaning to get around to this issue for a long time, and admittedly I won't be able to cover everything in one post; but I hope to provide a reasonable foundation upon which to later build more substantial arguments in the future. In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe that the current "facts" about man made global warming are false, and that those that seek to further that agenda are either ignorant, corrupt or both. But perhaps I am not, in my relative youth and inexperience, able to be concise enough, so lets hear what Czech President Vaclav Klaus, has to say on the matter:

“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

I'd say that about sums it up. Though to add in my own commentary, I contend that the last refuge of socialism is in fact environmentalism. Socialism, once the truth about it is known, is never a preferable way to live, but on the other hand you have environmentalism, which people equate to "saving the planet," a false cause/premise which people are willing to give up both their property and freedom to fight for. That being said, in this post I hope to shed a little light on the hypocrisy, misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies told by Al Gore and other people like him, because at this point it's not just simply profiteering off of a false/manufactured problem, but it's also killing millions of people world wide.

Global Warming is Anti-Western?:
Believe it or not, the idea that global warming is an anti-western movement, is actually not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Whether or not that is indeed it's true intention, the results seem to be undeniable. Global warming and environmental alarmists all support proposals (like Kyoto) that would have the net effect of closing down our economy from within. As more of these policies get passed into law, western nations are loosing their blue collar jobs to places like China and India where the governments in those two countries have said that they are not going to cut their emissions of CO2, because their goal is to be just as prosperous as the US and western Europe. All that happens when we close down our jobs due to well intentioned, but scientifically groundless, environmental regulations is that those jobs, carbon emissions and pollution then move to those countries instead. I think I can say with some certainty that environmental regulations in either of those countries don't quite make the grade when compared to the US or the UK. So if you are actually seriously concerned about environmental pollution, both real and imagined, then business should be encouraged in the western world, not demonized. Unilateral disarmament is not an option here, just as in the Cold War. There is no benefit for the western nations to disarm their economy for purpose of saving the environment if other countries will simply pick up the pieces and put them together again in a way that is potentially more harmful to the environment in both the short and long term.

Global Warming is Happening Now?:
There is no scientific basis for Global Warming. Why am I confident in saying such an obviously controversial statement, especially since I am neither a climatologist or a scientist? Well, it's because I actually take the time to read scientific studies and not just listen to the propaganda on the television every night. Despite what Al Gore seems to think, (I still can't believe he won the Nobel Prize) global warming is not happening now, and hasn't been happening for the past 10 years. In fact, during the past 7 years world temperatures have been dropping. Take this Daily Tech article for instance:

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

I think those findings from all FOUR global temperature outlets should speak for themselves, but apparently they are not loud enough to get through Al Gore's ego, or to the mainstream media either for that matter. Indeed Al Gore continues to say that we'll all be doomed in 10 years if we don't do something about global warming. I think it's time for a little fact/reality check. In 1989 the UN said that in 10 years entire countries/cities would be wiped off the map if we didn't do something about global warming. We haven't done anything substantive, Kyoto has been a failure, by anyone's definition, and nothing catastrophic has happened. Bangladesh, one of the places mentioned to be at risk of being wiped out by the "rising oceans" has recently been found to have more land area than in 1989.

Global Warming Hysteria = Murder?:
Again, I start with another controversial, salacious statement, that is none the less true. The rise in biofuels, in the never ending quest to "save the planet," over the past 3 years has also led to a horrific and equally large rise in starvation and poverty across the world. The UK Telegraph did some great articles on poverty, and starvation; unfortunately they seem to have gone unnoticed on the international stage where they could have done some good, and saved some lives. Government mandates in the US and in Europe requiring gasoline to have a certain percentage of biofuel content not only raises the price for food in the world but doesn't even help correct the problem they are trying to address, namely, climate change. Lets see what the UK's Oxfam has to say on the matter.

"Oxfam says so-called green policies in developed countries are contributing to the world's soaring food prices, which hit the poor hardest.
The group also says biofuels will do nothing to combat climate change."

Sounds hauntingly familiar huh? To take it one step further, Oxfam's biofuels policy advisor Rob Bailey is quoted as saying:

"Rich countries... are making climate change worse, not better, they are stealing crops and land away from food production, and they are destroying millions of livelihoods in the process."

Sadly destroying livelihoods is the least of the evils that extremist environmentalism has let loose upon the people of the world and you don't have to just take my word for it either. The World Bank and other international organizations have been looking at the effects of current biofuel policy and have similarly been shocked by the results.

"According to the World Bank's top economist, Don Mitchell, biofuels had been responsible for three-quarters of the 140 per cent rise in world food prices between 2002 and 2008. It was this that last October prompted Jean Ziegler, the UN's "special rapporteur on the right to food", to comment that biofuels could only bring "more hunger to the poor people of the world" and were a 'crime against humanity'."

"Most alarming of all to the global warming lobby, however, was a succession of studies showing that, far from helping to cut global CO2 emissions, biofuel production can often give off much more CO2 than it saves – not least by disturbing huge quantities of carbon dioxide locked in the soil which, according to the University of Minnesota, could release '17 to 420 times more CO2' than is saved by the fuels themselves."

So lets get this straight. Biofuels, which are held up as a way to stop the disastrous and looming threat of global warming, are 3/4 responsible for the 140% rise in food costs over the past 6 years. Not only that, but these so called Earth saving policies release 17 to 420 times more CO2, the horrible byproduct of human respiration that is supposedly suffocating the planet, than is saved by switching from petroleum based fuels to biofuels. This debacle reminds me of what happened when DDT was banned and 50 million people died due to trumped up environmental concerns. So when I say global warming hysteria is directly responsible for murder, just read these articles and you tell me if you think there can be any justification for people not being able to afford FOOD because Al Gore wants to make millions and get a Nobel Prize.

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley:
Thankfully there is a shining light of truth in all this darkness and deceit, and his name is Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. He was formerly an adviser to Margret Thatcher, and is now an international business consultant. His studies in both mathematics and climatology has been both enlightening and controversial. His most recent paper published by the American Physical Society, in July of this year; caused quite a stir in the international community because he had the audacity of hope, one might say, to believe that good science could win out over bad political ideology. In the end though, I think he was vindicated, let's take a look at the conclusion of his paper, which was at once, both well written and well reasoned almost to a fault.

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO₂ occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossible the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful."

"In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

Wow. I was honestly speechless after reading that for the first time. Needless to say his paper received strong condemnation from all around, even the American Physical Society itself. An account of the troubles Lord Monckton had can be found at the American Thinker. As a bit of a side note, Lord Monckton has repeatedly sought to debate Al Gore on his theories about global warming and climate change; thus far, Mr. Gore has refused. Apparently these days, "consensus" is enough to be categorized as fact, and you don't need to debate your ideas in order to be ensured of their veracity. But then again intellectual cowardice and moral bankruptcy are things to be expected from someone who is successfully peddling a lie, at the expense of other peoples health, wealth and lives.

Conclusion:
Trying to look at this as an objective person, I'd have to say that man made global warming, is at the very least, a false, manufactured crises. There is no basis for the claims of the environmental left, indeed even the climate models that they use to predict them are found to be flawed almost as soon as they are produced. I'm no scientist, but I do know that the best way to test a model of any kind is to match it up to the observed data. Thus far, if you match up the two, for any amount of time in either the past or the future, they simply don't match. It has been a point of fact for over 50 years now that climate models don't work because you need to know so much detailed information about the environment that it's impossible to accurately forecast anything beyond what the weather may be like for the next 5 days. The crux of the problem is that the supposed effects of CO2 or any other green house gasses are input into these climate models, not output. That is to say that the value or effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is data input by the researcher, you don't get the effects as a result of the climate models. So naturally a person who set out to prove Al Gore's theory correct would have a large amount of CO2 equivalent to deleterious effects to the environment, since the numbers and values in the model are all made up to begin with. The fact is that global warming, or cooling as the case may be has much more to do with natural causes like the absence of sunspot activity for the past three years, or the fact that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has switched from warm to cold (as it tends to do every 10 to 15 years) which also happens to be coupled with a cooling La Nina effect. I strongly encourage you to look through Lord Monckton's work and the rest of the links provided throughout this blog for yourself and use the logic and reasoning God gave you to see the truth behind lies that are popularized in the media today. There is a lot to fear in this uncertain world, extremist Islamo-fascism, economic instability, the ressurection of Soviet Russia, but global warming is not and should not be one of them; for the world or for this greatest nation on God's green (and still pleasantly warm) Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is a video of Michael Crichton discussing an aspect of the environmental movement that I didn't get around to discussing. I may elaborate further on this in the future, but Michael Crichton does it so well here, so I'll leave it to him for now.


For those that don't know, Babyface is my favorite artist of all time. Admittedly he's not the most talented, or even have the most timeless songs, but damn, I can get down on his music. This is one of his best ones, and it's a live performance too, off the Grown & Sexy album. Watch, learn, and cry. I did the first two, not the last one.. yeah..

Random Thoughts:
We've been together for a while now,
We're growing stronger everyday now,
It feels so good and there's no doubt,
I will stay with you as each morning brings sunrise,
And the flowers bloom in springtime,
All my love you can rely..
And I'll stay with you..

Oh I'll stay with you through the ups and the downs,
Oh I'll stay with you when no one else is around,
And when the dark clouds arrive..
I will stay by your side,
I know we'll be alright..
I will stay with you..

Quote of the Entry: "Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
-Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom 1962, American Economist, Novelist and Nobel Prize Recipiant (1919-2006)