Category Archives: Environment and Climate

Understanding Trumpism

The Republican Establishment is panic stricken now that Donald Trump has become the presidential nominee. So much so that they are not getting the message that is being given to them (and to Democrats) by his robust performance in the primaries. They rail against his perceived shortcomings without understanding what they signify.

He may be a bit unschooled in FOREIGH AFFAIRS, but he knows that the United States is the most powerful, most successful, economically strongest, most altruistic, generous and moral Nation in the entire world. And that it makes no sense for us to avoid taking the leadership role that is so sorely needed by the rest of the nations; no sense to make self-destructive agreements with the likes of Iran; no sense to apologize to the likes of Cuba, China, or anyone else; no sense to back down from Russia or any European, or Arabic country.

He may be a little out-spoken on immigration and refugee matters, but he knows that it is beyond stupid to allow Muslims to immigrate in large numbers because they do not desire our way of life, or culture. He knows many of them are unwilling and unlikely to assimilate, especially when they are poorly vetted politically. Have we learned nothing from the European fiasco? He knows that the ongoing, economically, and culturally destructive illegal immigration across our Southern border has been out of control for decades, and that prior Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have been unwilling to do what it takes to bring it under control.

He may be outrageously outspoken on other matters, but he knows the wide-spread, aggressive political correctness with regard to ethnicity, race and gender variation, is over-blown, distractive, and destructive to civil society. He knows that political correctness in the realm of higher education, not only by students, but by faculty and administration as well, is not just disruptive, but threatens to degrade the entire college/university culture. He understands that the ultimate goal of this political correctness is to instill ultra-liberal collectivism into the core of future influential citizens.

He is a little bombastic on the subject of FREE TRADE, but that is because he knows that it makes no sense to gut American manufacturing so that we could have cheaper electronic toys, clothes, notions and so on. He knows that it was not necessary to make it easy and economically attractive for American Industry to move overseas. Free trade could have been handled in such a way that foreign enterprises could be competitive with American companies without giving them overwhelming advantages.

He also knows that much of the above destructive behavior is at the behest of powerful, lavishly funded lobbies, and pressure groups who put their economic and/or political interests ahead of the well being of ordinary Americans. Trump, it should be noted, was self-funded in the primary election process. It is very possible that he believes what he says, and says what he believes. If that is true, he could be the most effective president since Ronald Reagan.

 

 

 

Obsession

One definition of obsession is: “the uncontrollable persistence of an idea or emotion in the mind, sometimes associated with psychiatric disorder”. The upcoming Paris Conference on Climate Change will be an expression of this definition to some degree. The hoped for results of this meeting of representatives of some 180 countries varies widely. Many countries hope to receive large monetary gains through the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to less advanced nations, presumably to aid the latter in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and to compensate them for perceived damages caused by past carbon dioxide emissions of the industrialized nations. The industrialized nations profess to reduce supposed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming by agreeing to drastically reduce future emissions. Other motives are, perhaps, to gain economic advantages through modified trade agreements. While the non-industrialized nations will surely benefit from the success of the Conference in the short term, the long term results are more problematic.

The reductions of emissions by the industrialized nations, while purported to be by means of developing alternate sources of power, will in fact, if proposed reductions are actually achieved, be a huge reduction in economic activity, along with enormous increases in the cost of energy, resulting in burdensome reductions in the standard of living for middle class and poor citizens. No doubt, the first step will be a so called carbon tax on all carbon dioxide emissions, the proceeds of which to be used for the aforementioned transfer of wealth to non-developed nations. Since there are no viable alternate sources of power to replace the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, restrictions on the use of these fossil fuels will result in ever increasing costs of energy, along with crippling reductions in industrial activities. This will result in large reductions in tax revenue at a time when the United States national debt is approaching twenty trillion dollars.

All this will be a major, major disruption in the world wide economy, based solely on the notion that the burning of fossil fuels generates enough carbon dioxide to drive the earth’s climate to catastrophic warming, while the facts are that any carbon dioxide emissions that fossil fuels generate is tiny compared to the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide through natural processes. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause rising temperatures; rising temperatures cause increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. You know this to be true if you have ever opened a warm carbonated soft drink bottle. If you open a cold soft drink bottle you will hear a brief sigh as carbon dioxide is released. If you then put the cap back on the bottle and set it in the sun for a while and then open it, you will be greeted by a powerful blast of releasing carbon dioxide, demonstrating that, as all chemists know, cool liquids can hold more dissolved carbon dioxide than warmer liquids. Most of the free carbon dioxide in the entire world is dissolved in the oceans. As the ocean surface is warmed by naturally occurring climate change, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

To believe that a fossil fuel produced 1/85,000th part of the atmosphere is driving climate change is to disregard the geology that you learned in high school. For the past two and one-half million years (at least) the earth’s climate has cycled between warm periods and ice ages when most of the northern hemisphere was covered in thousands of feet of ice. It is more than clear that something far more powerful than tiny amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide is driving the climate of the earth. Do scientists know all this? Of course they do. Why do many of them say otherwise? Why do so many politicians and world leaders claim to believe them? Why does the mainstream news media support the idea? And, most important of all, why do you believe them? Those are the questions you should be asking.

Seven Reasons for Disbelief

1) Logic
2) Common sense
3) Considerations of proportion
4) Basic knowledge of paleoclimatology
5) Awareness of mendacity & hyperbole
6) Awareness of political motivations
7) Awareness of environmentalist motivations

Logic (a reasonable way of thinking about something)

Since the temperature variation of the earth’s equator and north and south poles is more than 200 degrees, does it seem reasonable that the average temperature of the entire planet can be known to a fraction of one degree, not only currently, but fifty, one hundred, and ten thousand or more years ago? Is there really enough accurate temperature samples to conclude that the average temperature of the planet has increased by 7/10ths of one degree since the industrial revolution? Since we know that it has been about as warm as today in the past, and that a few thousand years ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered by more than a thousand feet of ice, why should a possible temperature increase of less than one degree be considered unusual, or manmade?

Common sense (sound practical judgment derived from experience rather than study)

Carbon dioxide, at 400 parts per million, comprises .04% of the earth’s atmosphere. Of all the CO2 produced and absorbed annually, burning of fossil fuels contributes about 3.5%, this according to NASA and NOAA estimates. This means that each 85,000 molecules of atmosphere, contains 1 molecule of man produced carbon dioxide. Does common sense allow us to conclude, with sound practical judgment, that a man produced one 85,000th part of the atmosphere is driving the earth to catastrophic global warming? Or does common sense tell us that this 85,000th part is lost in the noise of natural variation? Furthermore, the claim that carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the atmosphere to increase is based solely on the assumption that CO2 and temperature are increasing concurrently. This relationship is correctly termed a correlation. It is false logic to assume that correlation is causation. It may be that increasing temperature is causing the increase in CO2, or that both are caused by a third variable.

Considerations of proportion (the relationship between parts of the whole)

Expanding on the above: increasing the average temperature of the entire earth, necessarily including the oceans, requires an almost unimaginable quantity of energy. To propose that a manmade 1/85,000th part of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is capturing enough additional energy to increase the average temperature by one or more degrees in anything less than many millions of years defies any reasonable sense of proportion.

Basic knowledge of paleoclimatology (The study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth.)

Scientists have known for decades that earth’s climate has been cycling between ice ages and moderate temperatures for at least two and one-half million years. These climate changes occur in one hundred thousand year cycles, with about eighty-thousand years of cold and twenty thousand years of moderate temperatures. To date, there is no widely accepted hypotheses explaining these cycles. It is well established through ice cores, seafloor borings, and other proxies, that there have been many periods of temperatures comparable to current conditions, and that there have been periods when carbon dioxide concentrations have been greater than currently. Furthermore, the depth of the most recent ice age occurred about twenty thousand years ago, and it has been warming, in fits and starts, ever since. Since we know this has happened many times in the past, and since we would, therefore, expect the climate to be warming now, why would we conclude that a supposed warming of seven tenths of one degree is caused solely by human activity? Why would we conclude that a tiny increase in carbon dioxide concentration is caused solely by human activity? Why would we NOT conclude that there are far more powerful forces driving the climate than the manmade addition of 1/85,000th part to the atmosphere?

Awareness of mendacity & hyperbole (The deliberate falsification, distortion, and exaggeration of scientific facts, data, and studies with intent to deceive the public.)

This is the hardest thing to understand about the Manmade Climate Change Movement. How could a significant part of the climate science community undertake to deceive the public, the media, and many world leaders? There is a large body of evidence that this is what has happened.
One of the earliest, and most effective, statements proposing the notion of manmade global warming, was the hockystick graphic produced by Michael Mann, PHD., a professor of earth science at Pennsylvania State University. This graphic was chosen by the IPCC, Al Gore, and much of the Manmade Global Warming Movement, as a major tool to convince the public, the media, and everyone else that the burning of fossil fuels was driving the climate to disastrously increased temperatures. The graphic was very widely circulated through scientific journals, news media, official government pamphlets, and even a film documentary. Everyone seemed to accept the graphic as factual.
But even a rudimentary knowledge of climate over the past ten thousand years, should have been enough to discredit the hockystick graphic. It is a well known and accepted fact that the Medieval Warm Period was about as warm as the current supposedly elevated temperatures. Yet this warm period does not appear on the hockystick graphic. The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, also not appearing on the graphic. The warming from the end of the Little Ice Age to the start of the industrial revolution easily exceeds the supposed warming since then, all without the benefit of fossil fuel produced carbon dioxide.
In recent years, the hockystick presentation has been entirely discredited by dozens of eminent scientists. Not only have the science and statistical methods been proven false, but the veracity, and integrity of the author, Michael Mann, has been seriously questioned. All this was put forth in great detail in the recent publication, A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn. And yet, Michael Mann still strenuously defends what has been called “a pseudoscientific fraud”, and “scientific forgery”.
The second most influential claim extensively publicized by the IPCC as well as the rest of the Manmade Climate Change Movement, is that 97% of climate scientists agree that carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel burning is causing global warming and that it is a serious problem. Like the hockystick graphic, this is a deliberate corruption of statistical evidence. It has been thoroughly documented that this supposedly scientific determination was based on seventy-nine cherrypicked scientific papers. And yet, the 97% claim appears almost daily in newspaper stories, political speeches, opinion columns, and television news presentations.
One of the greatest threats to the credibility of IPCC science came with the “accidental” release of 1000 emails from the CRU in November of 2009. A further 6000 released in November of 2011 expanded and elaborated on the extent of activities and actions taken to produce a specific scientific claim. The emails provided evidence of the methods used to pursue what they referred to as “the cause” by key players in the IPCC Science and Summary for Policymakers reports. In their words, they tell us how they created the ‘scientific’ evidence to support the political agenda. These emails also discuss plans and actions of retaliation directed at scientists that publicly disagreed with the IPCC’s manmade global warming claims.
There can be no doubt that mendacity and hyperbole are rampant in the Manmade Climate Change Movement.

Awareness of political motivations (Political agendas are one of the major forces behind the corruption of climate science: )

Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
Quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of State of Washington, U.S.: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be
world government
with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance”
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
Quote by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “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.”
Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

The IPCC, a bureaucracy established and supported by the United Nations, is the source of funding for the Manmade Climate Change Movement.

Awareness of environmentalist motivations: (extreme environmentalism is a powerful force behind the corruption of climate science: )

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, founder of the IPCC: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
Quote by UK’s Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization…Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

They are telling us in plain English that we are being manipulated! Why do we not believe them?

To believe or not to believe

I find the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis to be not believable for a number of reasons:

When I first heard about it, I was flying over the American Southwest several miles high in an airliner looking down on hundreds of square miles of empty desert and barren mountains. Shortly before, I had flown over the North Atlantic Ocean to St. Petersburg, and spent a week traveling in sparsely occupied Russia, after which I flew back to the United States over the Arctic Ocean and the icy wastelands of Canada. I thought about how thinly the earth is populated in proportion to the size of the atmosphere which encompasses the entire globe and is miles in depth; if all seven billion people were spread evenly on the surface of the planet, there would be about thirty-five in each square mile and fewer still in each cubic mile of atmosphere. It is said that less than five percent of the earth’s surface is occupied by humans, and the percentage occupied by industrialized, high CO2 producing humans must be far less than five percent. I tried to visualize how this ‘monkey on an elephant’s back’ group of homo-sapiens could impact the climate of the entire earth. I could not.

Then I did some research on the supposed climate culprit, Carbon Dioxide. It turns out that CO2 is only four one-hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere, or four molecules in each ten-thousand. Further, of all the CO2 produced per annum, and absorbed by the atmosphere, humans are only contributing three or four percent. This means that about one molecule in each eighty-five thousand of atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide that was produced by the activities of man. One part in eighty-five thousand might be significant in a biological context, but we’re talking about thermodynamics. The energy it takes to raise the entire earth’s temperature by one degree, necessarily including the oceans, is barely imaginable, certainly far more than could be captured by this thin trace of Carbon Dioxide except over millions of years. My sense of proportion will not accept the assertion that manmade Carbon Dioxide is driving the earth’s climate into runaway global disaster.

Next, I considered Paleoclimate. For more than two million years, the earth’s climate has been cycling between the current human friendly temperatures that we now enjoy and glaciated periods when much of the Northern Hemisphere is covered in ice thousands of feet thick. These cycles are one hundred thousand years in length, with ten or twelve thousand years warm and eighty thousand years cold. All this pre-industrial, of course. Clearly, there are far more powerful forces driving the climate than manmade Carbon Dioxide.

I do not contend that any of the above is based on hard, tested, or settled scientifically determined facts or that any of it will rise to the level of accepted Scientific Theory, but neither does the MAN MADE CATASTROFIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT present hard, tested, or settled scientifically determined facts to support their contentions. Instead, they have resorted to computer based General Circulation Models as the principal support for their so called “SETTLED SCIENCE”, along with the spurious claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with their dire prediction of catastrophic climate change. As one wag put it: they average all of the wrong computer model outputs and call the average output the right answer. Apparently, however, the computer models don’t know all the facts. The models are saying the temperature should keep on warming while the real world stopped warming almost two decades ago.

An interesting observation is that if the General Circulation Models had been based on the assumption that a natural rise in temperature is responsible for the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration (which would make more intuitive sense), and all other assumptions, real world data, and mathematic logic had been the same, the computers would be confidently churning out estimates for the amount of increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration for each incremental increase in temperature.

“Climate models’ estimations of ECS are implicitly based on the assumption that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2. Therefore any assertion that the models show that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2 is invalid (circular logic).”
Mike Jonas, MA mathematics

Since we know that warming ocean water increases out gassing of Carbon Dioxide and warming air increases out gassing of naturally occurring earth bound Carbon Dioxide, why do we not conclude that natural warming is the cause of increasing Carbon Dioxide instead of the other way around? The reason why is that a naturally occurring temperature increase serves no political/environmentalist agendas. If warming is natural, there is no need to deny ourselves reasonably priced energy. If no animals are being harmed, the World Wildlife Fund is spinning its wheels. Since there is nothing we can do about a naturally rising temperature, there is no need to de-industrialize back to the stone age. No need for WORLD GOVERNMENT, and no need to amass trillions of tax dollars through so called carbon credits to support it. No need for drastic de-population. No need for wealthy fools to contribute millions to the Zero Population Growth fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earth First, and all the other NGO’s that depend on Climate Change propaganda for their major funding.

Free Trade

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I believe that free market capitalism is proven to be far above any other economic model, if the goal is to provide the highest standard of living for the most people. However, I find myself unconvinced that FREE TRADE, as it has been pursued by Republicans and Democrats alike, is all to the benefit of the United States. When I entered the workforce in the early 1950’s, it was easily possible to earn a good enough living, working at manufacturing, and other heavy or light industry, commerce, and middle management, to buy a home, raise a family, drive a serviceable automobile, take small vacations, and, in general, live the American Dream. These jobs were plentiful, healthful, safe, and reasonably secure. That is no longer entirely true, and it is getting more so every year.

In pursuit of FREE TRADE, our government has made it advantageous for the providers of these jobs to export them to foreign countries where the standard of living, and therefore wages are far lower than at home. In addition to lower standards of living, benefits and wages, industries in these countries also have far fewer environmental, and regulatory constraints to deal with. We have stacked the deck against a large segment of the American work force.

I know the FREE TRADERS insist that, in the long run, more jobs are created here than are exported. That is possibly true, but what are the qualities and characteristics of these jobs? More importantly, how accessible are these jobs to the former manufacturing/industry/middle management workers? The FREE TRADERS counter that funds for subsistence and retraining are made available for displaced workers. That’s not good enough. It is the work ethic of these workers, in partnership with the industrial geniuses of our capitalistic system that created the standard of living, environmental enhancements, and prosperity of these United States. There is no justice in availability of subsistence or retraining of displaced workers for jobs beyond their desires, accustomed modes and abilities.

It seems tragic to me that more efforts were not made to level competition between countries. I understand that over-reaching unions were a part of the motivation for outsourcing jobs, but still, leveling (or nearly so) the playing field, industry by industry could have accomplished the purpose without exporting a majority of well paying industrial, commercial, and middle management jobs. In this era of spread sheets, and computer modeling it would have been possible to compensate for disparity of standard of living, regulatory, and environmental conditions between countries on an industry by industry basis and set tariff rates to assure a competitive and fair economic exchange.

To those who say the United States owes assistance to undeveloped countries, I say fine; but the best way to help them is to teach them the power of competitiveness in a capitalistic society.

Dr. James Hanson

I recently watched a video of an address at a TED presentation by Dr. James Hanson, the subject of which was WHY I AM MOVED TO SPEAK OUT ON MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. I was pleased to find this video because I have searched in vain for a clear and simple explanation of why scientists believe that Carbon Dioxide is causing/will cause disastrous climate change. Surely Dr. Hanson, a former head of NASA, could set me straight.

Early on, he mentioned his fascination with the planet Venus, which has a very thick atmosphere of Carbon Dioxide and a temperature of 900 degrees. I took this, perhaps wrongly, as his intended indication of what CO2 can do to a planet. As I often do, I took this information too literally, and decided to test if there is a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. If Venus with an atmosphere of 100% CO2 is at 900 degrees, then earth with an atmosphere of .04% CO2 should be….. .0004 X 900, or —- 0.36 degrees. That can’t be right!

Afterwards, he went on to explain how, since CO2 was absorbing heat that should be radiated back out into space, the earth is getting more heat in than out, resulting in 0.6 watts per sq meter too much heat. I would have thought that, since incoming heat stopped at night, the warmer earth would radiate more at night to even thing up because I had heard somewhere, that warmer bodies radiate more heat than cooler bodies. But I guess that’s not scientific either.

Still, I was waiting to understand how an atmosphere containing 3 or 4 molecules of Carbon Dioxide for each 10,000 molecules of air could cause run-away global warming. It just seems out of proportion. Especially since this 3 or 4 molecules of CO2 had to absorb enough heat in 12 hours to last through the night, collecting enough heat in a nominal 12 hours of incoming to outlast 24 hours of outgoing radiation.

But then Dr. Hanson is a scientist and I am not. Still, I was waiting for the details of just how this miniscule percentage of Carbon Dioxide could change the climate of the entire Globe. But as I waited for this miraculous feat to be explained, Dr. Hanson moved on. He discussed how, in the past, during an ICE AGE, something, (he didn’t mentioned what) caused the atmosphere to heat up a bit. This prompted the oceans to outgas Carbon Dioxide which then took over and melted all the ice. That, he explained, is why in paloclimate studies, a rise in temperature always precedes a rise in CO2. I was glad to find this out because it was looking like a rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2. I am still puzzled, however, because when it started to get cold again when going into another ICE AGE, the temperature began to drop 800 years before the CO2 begin to drop. I was hoping Dr. Hanson would explain this anomaly, but again, he moved on.

He then went to some pains to show that, as the industrial revolution increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 1 part in 10,000 (my figures), the temperature increased proportionally (unlike my Venus calculations). He seemed to assume that this was explanation enough to prove that Carbon Dioxide controlled climate. I suppose that I should defer to Dr. Hanson, but I thought that this kind of relationship was called a correlation and I had heard that correlation was not causation. This relation could also mean that a warming climate caused increased CO2.

In conclusion, Dr. Hanson listed all the catastrophic things that were going to happen when Carbon Dioxide increased to 6 or 7 molecules per 10,000 of atmosphere. I guess I shouldn’t rely on my sense of proportion as much as I do, but I do; even knowing that a tiger can crush my skull with one bite, I am not that worried about my kitten.

Why I Am A Climate Change Skeptic

Of course the climate is changing and I am not really a skeptic, a term indicating doubt as to the veracity of an idea. I am very certain and have no doubt that the climate change idea is one of the tools of loosely organized cohorts with agendas having nothing to do with carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, global warming, polar bear survival, sea level rise, or anything else in the nature of weather and climate.

That is not to say that there are not many true believers in man-made climate change, just as there are many believers that Europe is on the right track with its socialist governments, despite serious indications of impending economic chaos, or that Communism is to be preferred over Free Market Capitalism, the collapse of the Soviet Union not-with-standing, or that evolution is an evil idea conceived by Satan.

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. Charles Mackay 1841

One reason Anthropogenic Climate Change has gained so many believers is that it has been promoted by many supposedly credible sources, such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. In addition, many politicians and mainstream media publications have bought the idea hook, line, and sinker. Politicians might be excused on the grounds that they may feel it prudent to believe what the Public believes. The Media, however, has no excuse. It is not only their job to report the concept of global warming, it is also their job to report the doubts voiced by thousands of scientists and dozens of scientific organizations. Even more insidious, is the confirmation by government funded scientific entities, such as NASA, and NOAA as well as most scientific publications. Government funding has prostituted hundreds or thousands of scientists, and many organizations. Even so, the much publicized claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that Carbon Dioxide is causing Global Warming and that Global Warming is an impending disaster, has been shown to be a deliberate falsehood.

Who are these cohorts and what are their agendas? First of many, is the group headed by Maurice Strong. Maurice Strong is a billionaire bureaucrat who has for years been one of the most powerful forces behind the United Nations as well as one of the most influential members of The Club of Rome. It was he who conceived the masterful plan to gain control of most of the worlds energy resources through a pseudo scientific United Nations bureau which he named The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. The IPCC, funded with billions of UN dollars, has a mission to finance “scientific studies” if, and only if, these studies support the main theme of manmade climate change and the subsequent environmental disasters that will result, and also to publicize the mostly dubious findings of these studies as widely as possible.

Mr. Strong’s agenda? As he puts it himself: “isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Mr. Strong and his colleagues at The United Nations and The Club of Rome have determined that Capitalism has created an unsustainable, and unjust society, over populated, and environmentally destructive. They mean to de-industrialize, de-populate, and bring civilization under control of a One-World Government centered within The United Nations. Hard to believe? Read what some of his cohorts have to say:

Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy”, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of State of Washington, U.S.: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance”

Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

Other members of this loose organization mentioned above, include most of the mainstream nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) that are mostly environmentalist organizations, such as World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earth First, and The Sierra Club. Probably not all of these NGO’s share Maurice Strong’s goal of world domination by the UN, but they are happy to piggyback on the climate change terrorism he is instigating by funding studies that claim climate change is slaughtering animals, killing coral reefs, destroying forests, ruining agriculture, acidifying the ocean, drowning cities, causing hurricanes, melting glaciers, or any other natural disaster that will enhance their fund raising efforts. They then spend multimillions publicizing the predetermined results of these so-called scientific studies to justify their fund raising. Most of the NGO’s, however, are obsessed with Capitalism, overpopulation, and pollution in general.

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Quote by Earth Charter, an environmental organization: “Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.”

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

Then there are individuals who have managed to reach large audiences. Many of them are university professors, minor politicians or journalists, and some are just radical misanthropes who would destroy all humans if they could.

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery”.

Quote by UK’s Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization…Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.”

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.

Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Reasonable people could find some sympathy with parts of the above agendas, but giving over America (and the rest of the world) to the dictatorship of the United Nations, an organization controlled by Socialists, Radical Islamists, Communists, Third World Countries, and ego maniacs like Maurice Strong and the members of The Club of Rome, is far too high a price to pay. If, however, this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, all you have to do is continue to drink the Kool-Aid provided by the IPCC, the mainstream media, Progressive Politicians, the NGO’s, and those who have bought into the Climate Change religion.

copy-Leesburg-e1411600345533.jpg

CO2 vs Global Temperature

Somehow the debate on Climate Change has gotten off point. The Skeptics have been insisting that Global temperature has not increased since 1998, and that Arctic ice is recovering, so climate change has ceased. The Warmists, while denying all that, publish more and more horror stories indicating that Global Warming has already caused massive disruption to our lives, as well as to the lives of plants and animals everywhere, not to mention droughts and hurricanes, and that everything is going to get much worse very soon.

Whatever the truth is about current Climate, the well known facts are that climate does change all the time, always has and always will. The debate should be: can humans do anything about it? Or perhaps: do human activities cause drastic changes in climate? Those questions boil to: does CO2 have a sufficient greenhouse effect, along with water vapor forcing, to cause significant changes in worldwide climate, and if so, do human activities generate enough additional CO2 to drive Global Warming to a “tipping” point, beyond which disaster will descend on all mankind and animal kind?

These questions are crucial, considering the very drastic and economically ruinous measures being proposed to reduce the emissions of CO2. Given the importance of establishing the certainty of the answers, I would expect that the proponents of man-made global warming would have relatively simple, definite, scientifically formidable, and understandable explanations for their decisions that the answers to these questions are YES.

I have not, however, been able to find compelling answers to the questions that would move me to agree with these proponents of CO2 as a controlling factor of climate change. The clearest and simplest explanations that I could find are the correlation between an increase in atmospheric CO2 with  rising temperature, and the claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and is a pending disaster. The latter has been shown to be a deliberate falsification by  means of a statically flawed survey of scientific studies.

The former can only indicate that temperature is controlled by atmospheric CO2; or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by temperature; or that both are controlled by something else. Beyond that, there is only arcane calculations which depend on accepting that CO2 is causing climate change, aided by powerful positive feedback, which must be taken on faith. Because of the importance of the questions, one would think that a physical model of atmosphere, insulated from all influences except for water, heat, and carbon dioxide could be built which could narrowly control and measure the effects relating to carbon dioxide and temperature.

Instead, numerous computer models, which cannot know all influences and factors, have been developed at great expense that have failed time and again to predict present day climate changes, and have failed completely to account for past glacial periods. None the less, promoters of manmade climate change ask the public, the media, and the scientific, and political communities to accept the output of these models as settled science. Inexplicably, they all seem to be doing so.

For myself, I find compelling answers to the questions that indicate otherwise. Firstly: does CO2 have a sufficient greenhouse effect, along with water vapor forcing, to cause significant changes in worldwide climate? 

Carbon dioxide is a minor trace gas, comprising 3 or 4 molecules out of each ten thousand of atmosphere.  That is .04%. To counter the intuitive sense of proportion that this is not enough to bring on worldwide climate calamity, they say that CO2 makes it a bit warmer which causes more sea water to evaporate, and water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. At first blush, this might seem somewhat reasonable until you realize that more water vapor means more clouds which reflect the warming rays of the sun. Besides, that same sense of intuitive proportion says that any additional evaporation that the tiny amount of anthropogenic CO2 might engender will be hugely overwhelmed by the constant evaporation in the tropical seas around the world.

Then: do human activities generate enough additional CO2 to drive Global Warming to a “tipping” point, beyond which disaster will descend on all mankind and animal kind? 

It turns out that of all the carbon dioxide that is generated and absorbed by the atmosphere annually, human endeavors, includingthe burning of fossil fuels, is only a very small part.

The following estimates are taken from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA web-sites of 2005 and 2006, when these sites carried detailed analysis of natural CO2 emission sources. It may be significant that the web-sites no longer include these data. These are interglacial estimates, such as present time. PgC = Petagrams of Carbon, annually. Variation are estimates.

Oceans:                                             130-220 PgC     variation =  70%

Microbial activity                              85-100    ”        variation =  18%

Insect activity                                    60-90       ”        variation =  50%

Frozen terrestrial                               20-30       ”       variation =   50%

Volcanic release                                10-20       ”       variation =   100%

Forest fires                                        10-15       ”       variation =    50%

Mammalian                                        8-12        ”       variation =   50%

Anthropogenic (mostly fossil fuels)   8-9          ”       variation =   12%

Totals                                321-496     ”       variation =  54 %

The 70% variation in Ocean out gassing depends on variations of water temperature, wind currents and atmospheric humidity.
The 50% variation in Insect CO2 production depends on the many variations in insect life cycles.
The 50 & 100% variation in Volcanic and Forest Fire production depend on naturally occurring events.

So, it just doesn’t seem likely that our puny 3 or 4 percent contribution to the earth’s carbon dioxide budget is the deciding factor in climate change. Especially since all other contributors vary by much more than 4% and any manmade CO2 is lost in the noise of natural variations.

It seems that the real question that needs an answer is: Why are the IPCC, many so called climate scientists, environmentalists, and UN Government advocates misrepresenting the role of Carbon dioxide in climate change? 

My intuition tells me that they have another plan that has nothing to do with climate, or greenhouse gas. The mythical 97% of scientists who claim to believe that carbon dioxide controls climate may have an environmentalist/political agenda.

 

Common Nonsense

It is foolish to contend, as many do, that the earth’s climate is not changing. And it is equally uninformed to hold that the earth is not warming. It is an accepted scientific fact that twenty thousand years in the past, most of the Northern hemisphere was under thousands of feet of ice. Now, the Arctic Ocean is mostly ice free for much of the year and glaciers are retreating all over the world. That’s climate change and global warming by any interpretation. It is equally true that the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased by about thirty percent over the past fifty years. So, what does our future hold?

A good guess would be that the climate will continue to get a bit warmer until something changes, at which time, if history repeats itself, it will begin to get colder, and colder until the Northern Hemisphere is covered with ice once again. We shouldn’t panic though, in the past it has taken, on average, forty thousand years for the climate to reach its coldest and another forty thousand years for it to warm up to the point where the ice is melting and it approaches today’s more comfortable temperatures. Then, there will be about twenty thousand years of moderate weather until it starts to get cold again. Anyway, that has been the scenario in the past. This cycle has repeated about every one-hundred thousand years for at least two million years.

You might well ask ‘why does this happen’? Is it because, at the bottom of the cold cycle, the atmosphere’s Carbon Dioxide suddenly increases by thirty percent for some unknown reason, heating the planet up? If so, why does it reverse its self and get cold again? Does something reduce the Carbon Dioxide by thirty percent?

Changing the world’s climate from pleasant to frozen and back again would seem a heavy load for Carbon Dioxide to carry, especially since it is a trace gas, actually comparatively insignificant in the overall make up of the atmosphere, being three or four hundred parts per million. Put another way, if you isolated ten thousand molecules of atmosphere, only 3 or 4 of those molecules would be Carbon Dioxide. An unscientific common sense of proportion suggests that there must be something else involved besides Carbon Dioxide.

If variations in CO2 is not the major cause of climate change, what is? The answer to that is: …. no one knows the answer to that;. Then why are governments spending billions of dollars in the attempt to convince the public that CO2 must be reduced if something else is going to change the climate anyway? Perhaps people in high places have agendas that have nothing to do with climate change. Here are a few quotations to consider as indications of possible motivations:

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environmental Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits … climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world”.

Quote by Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

Quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced, a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

So, it looks like some are willing to lie and misrepresent climate change and the role of Carbon Dioxide for environmental purposes, and others are interested in reorganizing society and world economics, and it looks like the United Nations Organization is deeply involved in the mendacity. I am sorely offended that so-called political and environmental leaders regard the public mentality with such contempt. Keep in mind that these are not duly elected officials. They are instead extreme environmentalists, and world government advocates involved with an organization (The United Nations) that is controlled by Third World Governments, Socialists, Communists, Theocracies, and Dictatorships.

It is especially vexing and difficult to understand why much of the Media Community has either been taken in by the mendacity or elected to join in the ideology. If the Media is endorsing the extreme environmentalism represented by the Global Warming/Climate Change movement, it is a deeply troubling breach of the public trust.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

The extreme environmentalist movement has taken on much of the irrationality of a fundamentalist religion, disregarding reality and grasping at improbable and unreasonable fantasies. The Earth is not in the dire straits that they imagine. In most ways, the environment is better than it has been for as long as we know our history. America and Western Europe have performed minor miracles cleaning up air and water pollution. Cities in America are cleaner than they have ever been. Endangered species have been protected and over protected, and the human species is safer, healthier and vastly more prosperous than ever. Forest have been protected; it is claimed that there are more trees in America now than in Columbus’s time. Wetlands, grasslands, mountains, rivers, wilderness’s, scenic vistas and much more are all protected from civilization. While it is true that the West is far ahead of most of the world, environmentally speaking, that hardly seems a reason to destroy the industrial societies that made these social and environmental improvement possible.

A few more telling quotations to consider:

Quote by Club of Rome: “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of State of Washington, U.S.: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to compliance.”

Quote by UN’s Commission on Global Governance: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”

Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.

As you may have noticed, there are powerful factions in the United Nations that are hungry for One World Government, to be centered in The United Nations, of course. These factions have spent many billions of dollars instilling the notion that industrial and commercial use of fossil fuels is destroying the earth’s climate through increasing Carbon Dioxide, with the goal of gaining control of the world’s energy supplies, eventually gaining control of world government. In their quest, they have prostituted or corrupted hundreds or thousands of scientists, dozens of formally respected scientific publications and other news media, vast numbers of environmentalists, and created or attracted an army of misanthropes. The above quotations suggest the kind of world we will be living in if The United Nations is successful in establishing its dream of One World Government.

Climate Change Arguments

Premise: The case for manmade global warming is simplistic, counterintuitive, inconclusive, unwarranted by proffered evidence, and inconsistent with paleoclimate precedent.

 

Argument one: In comparing the size of the atmosphere to the developed, carbon based fuel consuming areas of the world, and recognizing that more than 70% of the world’s surface is either covered by ocean or consists of other unpopulated regions while the atmosphere encompasses the entire earth several miles deep, it seems disproportionate that enough carbon dioxide would be produced by man’s activities to have a significant effect on the average temperature of the entire globe. Reinforcing this notion is the observations that the activities of man are not the only producers of carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not the only or most powerful greenhouse gas. A widely publicized graph demonstrates that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases with a rise in temperature and decreases with a fall in temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. This graph is intended to show that carbon dioxide is the cause of global temperature increases. It also shows, even more clearly, that atmospheric carbon dioxide varies widely in the absence of any manmade influences.

Argument two: The magnitude of the increases in temperature during the last 150 years, at less than one degree Celsius, and the increases in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere during the same time period, at 100+/- parts per million, are far too small to be significant. These increases are most likely within the margins of error in comparing readings over such a long period of time considering the improvements in the technology of measuring devices and in measuring techniques, or within the normal range of historic variations. It is well known that this magnitude of temperature variation occurs from year to year, decade to decade, and, no doubt, from century to century. There is within recorded history an era significantly warmer than today followed by an era known as the “little ice age.” The current era of so-called manmade global warming is easily within normal variations.

Argument three:  It is well known that earth’s climate has varied dramatically over geologic time independent of any manmade influences. ICE AGES as well as more tropical ages have been occurring for millions of years. During the past four hundred thousand years, four ice ages interspersed by four warm periods have occurred. The cooling periods averaged eighty thousand years in duration while the warming periods persisted twenty thousand years on average. The depth of the last cool period occurred twenty thousand years ago and the climate has been warming intermittently ever since. We do not necessarily know and understand why this occurs, but the trend is unmistakable: we are probably on the verge of a cooling period as we worry about a minor global warming. Twenty thousand years ago, much of the northern hemisphere was covered by massive sheets of ice thousands of feet thick. It seems reasonable to expect that the climate will continue to warm until the next ice age begins no matter what humans do. The most obvious failure of the Manmade Global Warming Through Carbon Dioxide argument is the absence of explanations for all the preindustrial climate variations over millions of years. In effect, they are saying “natural causes were responsible for global climate changes in the past, but we are certain that human produced carbon dioxide is causing climate change now because the warming is more rapid than prehistoric warming.” The claim that warming is occurring more rapidly than in prehistoric times depends on being able to know prehistoric temperature within fractions of one degree and rate of increase in temperature during 150 year periods, all from tree rings, ice cores, and other proxy estimates. This is absurdly simplistic and implausible in view of the extreme difficulty in determining present average global temperature. If warming is to be expected at this time, and if we know that the climate has been warming (in fits and starts) for about twenty thousand years, and if we know that ice ages followed by warming periods have occurred many times over millions of years, and if we know that atmospheric carbon dioxide has varied widely over millions of years, why has it suddenly been concluded that this current possible slight warming of a fraction of one degree is due to a manmade carbon dioxide increase of one part in ten thousand?

Argument four:  It is becoming clear to independent thinkers that the most controlling influence on Global Climate is the powerful and prevalent greenhouse gas, water vapor. As vapor, it acts as an insulator, preventing heat from escaping into space. As clouds, it reflects solar radiation preventing heat from reaching the earth. An intriguing hypothesis is that that solar radiation shields the earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays incoming from outer space. When the sun is in a quiet period this shielding effect is reduced and cosmic radiation, by means of an ionizing process, increases the formation of clouds, resulting in atmospheric cooling. Conversely, when the sun is in an active phase, less clouding forms, resulting in atmospheric warming. In addition, it is known that earth’s magnetic field also has an important effect on the strength of cosmic radiation so that variations in climate could also be related to variations in the magnetic field. With all focus on carbon dioxide, there is not sufficient funding to study these commonsense theories and there is an almost complete lack of media attention to them.

        

Ambiguous Science

The false and foolish claims of the IPCC regarding Man Made Global Warming are becoming more completely exposed every day. Ever more scientists can no longer be complicit by their silence in this improbable, irrational fairytale. The extent of bogus claims insulting the intelligence of the general public has, at last, exceeded credibility. The great hoax is beginning to unravel.

We should not, however, expect capitulation from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; their agenda is far beyond actual climate and, in fact, has nothing to do with climate or carbon dioxide. The billions they have spent in the attempt to convince all of us that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the environment was simply for the purpose of gaining governmental control of energy, advancing the transition to world government, and transferring wealth from the developed nations to the third world (and to The United Nations). If you want to know what is in store for us in a world governed by The United Nations, they have laid it all out for you in the UN Publication entitled “Agenda 21”. As the Man Made Global Warming ruse slowly fades away, some other manufactured crisis will arise. The leaders of the UN are relentless in their pursuit of World Rule.

One of the most regrettable effects of this massive and ill conceived lie is our justified loss of faith in the integrity of science and scientists. Formally, most of us accepted the results of peer reviewed scientific studies, usually appearing first in popular scientific journals, as scholarly and honest attempts to understand reality and advance the state of our knowledge. Now, many of us look suspiciously at new conjectures by scientists on even slightly controversial proposed scientific advancements. What is the hidden agenda? we ask ourselves. Is this work truly the result of well controlled experiments, or mathematically supported theories? Or is this sham supporting the environmental, political, or commercial wishes of a generous funding entity?

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)

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. (Christine Stewart, Environment Minister for Canada, 1998) 

Carter, Professor Robert (2011-06-06). Climate: the Counter Consensus (Independent Minds) (Kindle Locations 2194-2196). Stacey Arts. Kindle Edition.

In his book Science and Public Policy240, Australian Professor Aynsley Kellow explores the problem of noble cause corruption in public life in some depth. Such corruption arises from the belief of a vested interest, or powerful person or group, in the moral righteousness of their cause. For example, a police officer may apprehend a person committing a crime and, stuck with a lack of incriminating evidence, proceed to manufacture it. For many social mores, of which ‘stopping global warming’ and ‘saving the Great Barrier Reef’ are two iconic examples, it has become a common practice for evidence to be manipulated in dishonest ways, under the justification of helping to achieve a worthy end. After all, who wouldn’t want to help to save the Great Barrier Reef? Regrettably, and perhaps driven in part by their support for broad environmental causes, not all scientists within the climate community have maintained the dispassionate, disinterested approach that is the sine qua non of good scientific research. Instead, some have become advocates for the cause rather than the science of global warming.

Carter, Professor Robert (2011-06-06). Climate: the Counter Consensus (Independent Minds) (Kindle Locations 2205-2213). Stacey Arts. Kindle Edition.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making…. Manmade climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: 

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government.  There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.  We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

 

 

The Loss of Meaning

As the scope and influence of religion has waned in modern times, the conviction that there is no God to judge, protect, and punish, and for mankind to serve, has begun to permeate the thought processes of some people. It seems that, rather than freeing the intellect to ponder more practical matters, the lack of deity has resulted in an uncomfortable void in their minds. This void is often subconscious, resulting in undefined discontent.

This state of mind may be the reason for the misanthropic motives of the uncompromising environmentalists. Those with this state of mind see mankind as an unmitigated blight on the natural world, having despoiled the planet to sustain an excess population of self-serving fools, intent only on shallow gratification through senseless music, ridiculous fashion, superficial socialization, and on an insatiable lust for property, for electronic toys, automobiles, and all manner of pointless consumption. In their eyes, humans are no longer considered a product of divine will; they are a pestilence. Environmentalism has replaced God, and dispelled the undefined discontent. Now, humans are expendable.

While this point of view sometimes seems justified, the environmentalists are pursuing a strategy of attrition, whereby the human population will slowly be starved for space, enterprise, energy, and natural resources. For this strategy to be successful, the general public must be deceived into believing that such measures are for the benefit of all as set forth in the United Nations AGENDA 21. Actually, the dubious benefits would be for those who survive the inevitable economic and social disintegration that is their goal. If the God-forsaken environmentalists are successful in implementing their strategy, a very long era of poverty and depravation will eventually ensue. The years of agony while the excess human population dies out are too much to endure for this fanciful notion of saving the environment. Better to wait for a giant meteorite to wipe us out so nature can start anew. Humanity is not forever after all. It is only a brief experiment in evolution that the Earth will survive.

The Future of Government

“Now, as in the past, the future of governments is collectivism.” Anonymous

“Intellectuals in politics sometime are given to pursuing utopian and ultimately impractical visions.”Arthur Cyr.

Intellectuals and academics expend enormous quantities of brain power planning how to govern the planet’s humans in order to cure society’s many ills, such as:

over population,
environmental degradation,
wealth imbalance,
disputes between nations or tribes,
unwanted immigration,
depletion of resources (fisheries, metals, fossil fuels, whales, polar bears, bees, wetlands, forests, water, ice, croplands, etc),
racial prejudges,
gay rights,
women’s rights,
animal rights,
corporate excesses,
labor union excesses,
unemployment,
currency stability,
banking solvency,
affordable housing,
poverty,
mental illness,
education,
affordable college tuition,
law enforcement excesses,
politicized news media,
politicized academia,
over regulation,
excesses in criminal justice,
over consumption,
depredation of aesthetics (art, music, literature, humanities),
and perhaps a few more.

Reviewing this partial list of mankind’s problems should be enough to discourage the “Best and Brightest” from their goal of governmental perfection. Not the case, however. Numerous think tanks of all political persuasions beaver on, searching for the governmental garden of Eden. All of these, for the most part, well-meaning enterprises share the same strategic flaw: they are unable to understand, and account for the disparities of human nature, much less control them. What’s good for the goose may well be despised by the gander.

Not to be discouraged, however, one powerful political organization, with the cooperation of others, has mounted an ambitious (and clandestine) campaign to enfold all mankind under one umbrella, that of the United Nations. Some might complain that the United Nations has not so far been a spectacular success in mediating disputes, or embracing emerging nations, or enforcing laws that it has established. And many might point out that the ruling cabal in the U.N. seems to be made up of socialists, communists, despots, third world tyrants, and supporters of terrorist, and other extremists. None-the-less, behind the scenes intellectuals have partnered with the likes of The Club of Rome, and numerous socialistic leaning NGO’s to persuade the world’s populations to come together under the United Nations in order to save the world from environmental disaster.

“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 urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” H.L. Mencken

Maurice Strong, a very high level U.N. bureaucrat, and member of The Club of Rome, has organized and initiated an astonishingly elaborate, persuasive, and successful campaign to convince the global populace, and powers that be, that the worldwide use of carbon based fossil fuels is causing the planet’s climate to overheat, spiral out of control, and is leading to unprecedented environmental disaster. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientist, scientific publications, politicians and the news media, have been prostituted, corrupted, or duped into supporting this pseudo science.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” The Club of Rome.

“The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance” Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of the State of Washington

The immediate goal seems to be gaining control of the worlds energy, thereby controlling industry, commerce, transportation, and shipping by means of carbon taxes, regulations, and environmental laws. All this is to lead to a gradual submission to the United Nations of all major governmental functions. If this strategy is successful, what will life be like for us citizens of the WORLDWIDE UNITED NATIONS? One of the ultimate goals is de-industrialization, or de-development.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar

This may not be enough to satisfy some:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” Maurice King, well known UK professor

Another major goal is depopulation. I leave it to your imagination as to how this might be accomplished.

“There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

“…the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.” The Club of Rome

If this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, just relax. It’s on the way.

Skeptic’s Dilemma

It’s not easy to maintain my man-made global warming skepticism in the face of all the television, newspaper, and scientific journal pieces that say it is so. The skeptics’ contentions are well known and most of them have been countered by publications of the IPCC and other peer reviewed sources. But still, I just can’t accept the notion that a tiny increase in carbon dioxide can disastrously change the climate. Since 1850, so they say, CO2 has increased from 3 molecules out of 10,000 to 4 molecules out of 10,000 of atmosphere (rounding up to whole numbers). This 1/10,000th increase is said to have raised the average surface temperature of the entire earth by ¾ of 1 degree, and, as the atmospheric content of CO2 reaches 8/10,000ths, we will experience runaway global warming. That seems way out of proportion, and is hard for me to believe.

I also have trouble believing that the average surface temperature of the whole earth was known to a fraction of a degree 150 years ago, and that the CO2 content of the atmosphere was known to within 3/10,000ths, since determining today’s same temperature and CO2 is an extremely complicated undertaking, requiring computer aided adjustments of many thousands of temperature monitoring stations scattered unevenly around the globe, many of which did not exist or were in different environments as long ago as 1850. Furthermore, it was only in the mid 1970’s that a credible method of sampling CO2 worldwide was perfected when an official laboratory dedicated to such measurement was established in Hawaii.

This is not to say that I dispute that the earth’s surface temperature has increased and that the proportion of CO2 has increased; I don’t. Since we know that the earth has recently experienced a glacial period when, 20,000 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried under thousands of feet of ice, and we know that burning fossil fuels produces CO2. Those are reasonable assertions.

But glacial periods and warming periods have happened many times before. Why is this time different? The IPCC says the ¾ degree of warming happened more rapidly than in the past, so natural forces cannot explain it. That just seems willfully implausible. They are asserting that they know the average surface temperature of the earth to within a fraction of a degree thousands of years ago, and that they know the rate of change that occurred during a 150 year period many centuries in the past. It looks very much as though they are untruthful.

But how to explain why several thousand scientists are so adamant in convincing the world that climatological disaster is upon us if it is not true? I have to admit that seems more than implausible, even though there are examples of widely held beliefs eventually proven false, such as: sun orbits the earth, earth is flat, bloodletting cures disease. But that was in our distant, uneducated past. Perhaps many of these scientists don’t necessarily buy in to the CO2 mantra, but are just doing the job they are funded to perform. Though anthropogenic climate change spokesmen endlessly repeat their principal argument, “an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is causing major global warming,” there are plenty of well-respected geologists and climate scientists who do not agree. Perhaps in desperation, I have imagined the following circumstances:

For reasons having nothing to do with climate, people in high places in the United Nations became convinced that world order would be better served if wealthy countries would divert more funds to developing countries, say in the form of purchasing carbon credits. Or, alternately, became convinced that the world would be better served if the use of fossil fuels were drastically reduced or eliminated, perhaps for environmental, demographic, cultural, or even economic reasons. These people then recruited a very small group of likeminded administrators to create an agency (the IPCC) to sponsor scientific studies supporting anthropogenic climate change, and funded the agency with billions of dollars. Naturally, studies that did not support global warming and the CO2 explanation were not funded. Or if they were funded and did not support manmade global warming, they were not accepted for IPCC’s version of peer review. Working scientists who participated soon realized that if they wanted funding and publication, their studies would have to be grounded on a conviction that CO2 was controlling climate. Even when based on a falsehood, scientific studies can produce a lot of impressive conjectures and convincing conclusions.

Billions of dollars have been spent funding hundreds of studies intended to establish that the average surface temperature (AST) of the earth is increasing; this despite the fact that geologists and climate scientists already knew that the AST has been increasing (in fits and starts) for 20,000+/- years, since the ending of the last glacial period. Why spend all that money to support a fact already known and accepted unless for the purpose of generating a mountain of paper work to establish a consensus for the idea of CO2 induced warming? This mountain of studies then became a source of data for the invention of computer models intended to forecast the future temperature increases and a wealth of conjectures on the dangerous and destructive effects of increased temperatures. Additional billions have been spent on these computers and climate models even though the basic software for these models presumes the uncertain and unproven fact that CO2 controls the climate, when, in fact, the controlling factors of climate are not all known and understood.

One other factor supporting my personal skepticism is the extent of politicization of the possible effects of global warming as well as its extent. It seems clear to me that both are being grossly exaggerated for the purpose of generating anxiety in the general public, thereby increasing the tendency of people to accept an idea that is only weakly supported by scientific reasoning and not at all by common sense.

My skepticism defines the term “lost cause.” All skeptics were overwhelmed some years ago. We were buried by the IPCC (funded by billions of dollars), the news media (reaping the benefits of thousands of columns of impending disaster story fodder), Politicians and heads of state (either duped by prodigious reams of pseudo facts or in on the mission), and the public’s willingness to accept implausible scenarios presented by plausible spokesmen.

We are well on the way to crippling the economies of the Americas, Western Europe, and much of Asia by means of an in vain (and vainglorious) misconception that humans have the power to counter nature’s climate. In a few decades (or millenniums) when the ice sheets start marching down from the arctic, I believe our descendants will be appalled at our foolishness.

Dawn Comes to the Unenlightened

I have always known that Carbon Dioxide has little to do with climate change. It is a beneficial trace gas, benign, and weak in its greenhouse effect, so I could never understand the vehemence with which it is being sold as a climate disaster. Now, thanks to the C3 Website (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html) I finally understand that the Climate Change Movement is not about climate at all. It’s about Deception, Social Engineering, One World Government, Depopulation, Deindustrialization, Redistribution of wealth, Extreme Environmentalism, and other misguided, cultish notions.

Deception:

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: “We routinely wrote scare stories…Our press reports were more or less true…We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Social Engineering:

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “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.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

Quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Quote by Earth Charter, an environmental organization: “Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.”

One World Government:

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance”

Depopulation:

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “…the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.”

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery”.

Deindustrialization:

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by UK’s Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization…Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability.”

Quote by Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute: “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Redistribution of wealth:

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

Quote by Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and a leading member of the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…Capitalism is destroying the earth.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”

Quote by Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain: “Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even one percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December [2009].”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Extreme Environmentalism:

Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

Quote by René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim “Think globally, act locally”: “Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire: “The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth.”

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.”

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”

Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.

Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

* * * * * *

If a gullible public buys into to this nonsense, as it seems to be doing, then Nineteen Eighty Four will be the new reality. Why these loons think a Socialistic United Nations Government could manage the Environment, let alone the whole world is beyond understanding given the history of Socialistic Governments, not to mention the history of the UN itself. The answer is, of course, that many of these people would welcome the economic/social collapse that will surely occur.

Civilization and Nature are not in the dire straits depicted by these quotations. Besides, The Earth has its own way of dealing with excessive abuses: when needed, an extinction event occurs and Nature starts anew. We need to face the fact that Humanity is not forever, it is only a brief experiment in evolution that the earth will survive.

The Global Warming Concept

A compelling quotation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman was printed in The Star recently: “A concept is stronger than a fact.” She was probably referencing a feminist issue of some sort, but this wise aphorism has far reaching application. The first definition of ‘concept’ in the Encarta Dictionary is as follows: “Something thought or imagined. Something that somebody has thought up or that somebody might be able to imagine.” Among the synonyms offered by the dictionary are: idea, notion, thought, perception, impression, theory, hypothesis and, finally, belief. This definition and list of synonyms makes the point that a concept is not dependent on facts, and the Charlotte Perkins Gilman quotation makes the point that a concept may very well over ride any facts pertaining to the subject at hand.

Think about the concept that making guns illegal will reduce violent crime, a notion held and strongly pursued by many otherwise logical and practical citizens. In their minds, the concept is far stronger than the obvious fact that the government will be no more able to eliminate illegal guns than it is able to eliminate illegal drugs, making the NRA’s self-serving slogan “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” a good deal more sensible than the high minded concept so strongly held by many. Think about the concept held by millions of pacifists that war is always avoidable and that our government is at fault for participating in such evil, self-destructive nonsense, ignoring the fact that it is necessary to participate in war if we are to avoid being destroyed by the many malevolent forces existing all over the world. It is as if these folks had no knowledge of the past; their concept of peace is stronger than the facts of history.

In remarkably similar fashion, the concept of global warming has so overwhelmed the common sense of a part of the scientific community, the media, the political powers that be and, apparently, the public, that the facts of world climate are no longer even relevant. It is now assumed by all that the facts of what drives world climate are all known and understood and that these facts are conclusive in the accepted notion that not only is the world’s climate warming disastrously, but that this warming is driven by human activities and that it can be reversed if we just give up using carbon based energy. But in truth, all the facts related to the world’s climate are not known and understood, and the facts that are known (and perhaps understood) do not support any part of this global warming concept.

No matter; as Ms. Gilman informs us, the concept is stronger than the facts.