It is the most fearsome boogeyman of our time. It has the power to exterminate all human life, and to transform our vibrant Mother Earth into just another desolate, lifeless rock hurtling around a nameless star in a dark and meaningless void. Its name is “Global Warming.” It can make small children lie awake at night, shuddering in inconsolable fear. It can even make rational men and women give up their wealth, their lifestyle, and their human birthright of freedom to try to tame it. Our urgent task now is to uncover the truth, so that we may know once and for all: Is it real? Or is global warming a hoax?
As we peel back the tangled web of myths, truths, and outright lies surrounding our monster, we have to examine a few basic questions. Does it make sense, logically? Is it caused by man? What is the science, and who are the scientists, behind global warming? Are they reliable? What is the science against it? What are the politics and hidden agendas behind global warming? How much money is behind it? What if the alarmists are wrong? What if they are right?
We have all been students of our planet long enough to know that, in the eons of geologic time, our earth has changed drastically many times. In its 4.5 billion year history, the earth has, at various times, been searing hot, waterless, and once a completely frozen snowball. The atmosphere has been toxic at times, and more oxygenated at other times. It has been bombarded by millions of asteroids, and even destroyed by a collision with another planet, resulting in the creation of our moon, our oceans, and our molten core. All of these things happened without any influence from humankind. We can assume that in the next 5 billion years before our sun supernovas, ending the tenure of our small planet, many more changes will certainly occur that will undoubtedly challenge our very existence.
The first thing one must wonder when presented with a theory this huge and sinister, is: Can science really know for sure if global warming is real? Can it even rise from the level of conceivable hypothesis to the level of plausible theory, much less to the level of “settled science”? The weatherman is not always right about the advent of a thunderstorm, the severity of tomorrow’s snowfall, or which way a hurricane will turn. The almanac often doesn’t even come close on the amount of precipitation we will get this spring or how many inches of snow will fall over the winter. But they can tell us, with a straight face and without a blink or a wink, that if we don’t stop driving SUVs today, the polar icecaps will surely melt in 30 years? Does this pass the simple test of third-grade logic?
It cannot be denied that there is some truth in the thinking behind global warming. But, as the Bible points out, the Devil himself effectively uses the technique of mixing truth with lies in order to be more convincing. If we recognize some of it as true, we are less likely to doubt the parts that we aren’t so sure of. Could that be going on here?
No one can question the basic premise of conservation that we have always known and accepted: Putting poison into our air and water cannot be a good thing. It is better not to pollute than to pollute. We should always be seeking better and cleaner ways to run the engines of our economy and our transportation systems. This is the truth that is intermingled with all of the snake-oil science that “proves” global warming. We all want to be good caretakers of our earth. If the common sense doesn’t get us, the emotion and empathy for a victimized planet will. The theory of global warming is not built on a faulty premise; the foundational common sense is solid. But is the science that is built upon this foundation solid as well, or are we being duped by a Pied Piper with a devious purpose?
So, let’s start with how we got to this place in time where global warming is an issue. What are the factors that determine the earth’s climate? Everything. The placement of the continents and continental drift; the warm and cold ocean currents; undersea currents; the amount volcanic activity (both above the ground and under the sea); methane emissions from the earth and sea floor; the sun’s 11-year sunspot cycle; slight variations in the precise tilt of the earth and our closeness to the sun; the gradually slowing speed of earth’s rotation; the size and number of rainforests; the speed and placement of the atmospheric jet stream; the amount of water, water vapor, and precipitation; slight variations in earth’s protective magnetic field and radiation in space; el niño and la niña; the composition of the atmosphere; even the heat-absorbing or reflecting color of the earth’s landscape itself. The list goes on and on.
A millennium ago, the earth experienced the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 AD), which allowed the Vikings to inhabit Greenland until they were chased out by the Little Ice Age of the 17th Century. We have seen the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The Arctic seas were free of ice and navigable in both 1822 and 1922. All of this occurred with little or no man-made carbon emissions. Understanding climate change requires tracking an unimaginably long list of variables over a very, very long period of time. The earth has been around for 45 million centuries, and has experienced only a handful of geologic ages during that time. Hanging a theory of climate change on a hot 1998 or a couple of decades – or even centuries – of limited meteorological data, is like drawing a map of England based on one shovelful of dirt. The margin or error is infinite.
Our Neanderthal method of graphing tree ring data from a thousand years ago, “processing” the raw data with one scientist’s skewed idea of “other factors,” and then blending it with recent sea water and atmospheric readings, gave us the infamous “hockey stick” graph, showing runaway global warming in the 20th century. The graph has since been debunked and exposed as a convenient lie, and the fatally flawed scientific method behind it has gone down in disgrace.
Alarmists got the ball of global warming theory rolling, basically, by using the science of looking out their window at the weather and checking their thermometers. Air temperatures in one part of the world, sea temperatures in another, and an increase (or decrease) in hurricane activity is put together in convenient ways to draw a picture of global warming. Throw in some man-made CO2 emissions, and we’ve got a crisis, which (conveniently) only a global government can fix.
Never mind that earth’s average temperature has been declining for five to ten years. Never mind that thermal satellite photos don’t support the land-based data. Never mind that the temperature on the Antarctic subcontinent would have to increase about 85° F, from 50° below zero to a few degrees above freezing, and stay there for a century or two in order to allow melting ice to raise the level of our oceans to a concerning level. Never mind that it is impossible to track enough short-term data with a reliable computer model to predict a long-term certainty. Never mind that 300 million years ago in the Late Carboniferous Period is the only time in the last 600 million years that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth’s average temperature were as low as they are today. For most of earth’s history, temperatures have been 5 to 10 degrees hotter than they are now, and CO2 levels have been many times higher than they are today, rising and falling many times (without any human activity). And rising and falling CO2 levels don’t always correlate with temperature fluctuations. Yet the alarmists, scientific consortiums, and government entities keep pushing ahead.
I think a fair-minded, inquisitive person can safely conclude at this point that global warming is a myth, not provable by any reasonable standard. But “myth” is not our final destination. A myth can come from harmless legend or even from an innocent lack of knowledge about the truth. A hoax is more than a myth. Much more. More purposeful. More deceitful. More evil. A hoax is a conspiracy perpetrated on unsuspecting dupes by monomaniacs with a master plan and a hidden agenda. So…is it more than a myth? Is global warming a hoax? Let’s look at the geopolitics and the money behind global warming.
If global warming were an honest scientific theory, wouldn’t the current cooling trend stop it in its tracks? Wouldn’t freewheeling debate enabled by an impartial media allow scientists with alternate views to present their data in mainstream publications and programs? Wouldn’t the “Climategate” exposé have crippled the movement or shut it down in disgrace? Wouldn’t that alone have caused honest governments to turn their backs on plans for the most restrictive market regulations, Draconian and forced lifestyle changes for all citizens, punitive taxation, and economy-busting spending spree in the history of mankind? Since that didn’t happen, it seems we have to eliminate “honest” and “impartial” from our discussion.
Literally thousands of emails and documents, many of which proved that graft, corruption, money, politics, and the agenda behind the global warming movement determined the message. The so-called “science” was simply manipulated data, which was retrofitted, massaged, created, or hidden to yield the pre-determined results.
oto pulled back the sequined curtain to reveal that the Wizard of Oz was a hoax. It was just a man manipulating some levers and saying frightening things in the guise of a great and powerful leader. Even young Dorothy and her brainless and cowardly companions knew a fraud when they saw it. Yet, in the aftermath of the University of East Anglia “Climategate” scandal and exposé of malpractice, our fearless leaders are still saying, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” The lapdog media has obediently complied. The global warming gang proceeded with the Copenhagen climate summit, and the U.S. Congress is proceeding with its massive Cap and Trade bill, as if nothing has happened. Do they really think that we are less intelligent than a scarecrow and a 12-year-old orphan girl?
Like most grandiose progressive and liberal schemes over the decades, global warming is a means to an end. Global warming is indeed man-made. No, not the reality of a warming planet, but the manufactured crisis itself. The crisis scam was created by men and tailored to the needs of a progressive agenda. Global warming was created to consolidate the “crisis clutter” that left-wing power brokers had to keep re-inventing and repackaging in order to promote their agenda of power and greed.
Global warming, for several reasons, is the perfect monster to keep weak-minded people under their thumb. It is very frightening and can destroy mankind; it reaches across all political, economic, and social domains and issues in its scope, its causes, and its effects; and the results of it are so many decades or centuries into the future that no one can ever absolutely prove that it isn’t so.
Whatever the agenda behind global warming may be, there is one thing we can be sure of. We cannot trust the people (especially scientists and politicians that all sing the same tune in unison with no dissent) whose power base or financial well-being depends upon the continuation of a crisis, to tell us when the crisis has ended. Those who survive and thrive on government grants to investigate global warming are always going to tell us that the situation requires further analysis. Those whose political viability depends upon cash cow advocacy groups and whose power and agenda need crises and victims in order for them to flourish, are never going to say, “Never mind. False alarm.”
Global warming has become too big to fail. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t even consider the possibility that anything could change their mission. Trillions of dollars are at stake. It seems nothing can stop the steamroller of global warming “progress.”
It is not difficult to show how global warming could certainly be a “front” for a hidden agenda of Marxist control and wealth redistribution. Just take a look at Cap and Trade. The government, or perhaps a sovereignty-stealing global governance commission, will set limits on the amount of carbon that companies can produce (the “Cap”). Above that limit, they will have to exchange money to get carbon credits from somebody else who didn’t use all of theirs (the “Trade”). So, let’s say Jumbo Auto Company in the U.S.A. is making and selling lots of cars, and they run out of carbon credits. Now they have to find another company that has extra carbon credits they can buy. Enter Bob, from the jungles of Ooma-Booma. He owns Bob’s Car Company there, which is really just a lawn chair under a palm tree. But he has his nation’s rights to those carbon credits. Jumbo buys Bob’s credits, which is reflected in the price of the cars you buy. So a lot of your money goes to Ooma-Booma. Bob can now fund terrorism, become a local warlord, or just buy a lot of nice things. America becomes poorer and other nations become richer. But there is just as much carbon in the air. Great plan?
Some estimates of the cost of government-controlled global warming agendas worldwide could surpass 110 trillion dollars, or perhaps twice the GDP of the whole world. Is it worth it? Is it worth the high taxes, the skyrocketing energy prices, and the loss of lifestyle and personal freedoms to fund a massive boondoggle and turn our souls over to authoritarian leaders who want to turn our world into a human anthill?
According to the Environment News Service, 20,000 people might die for every one degree Celsius increase in the global temperature. Never mind that global temperature is on the decline right now. Shutting down all of our power plants and all of our cars would not yield a .1% decrease in temperature. Meeting the U.S. Cap and Trade bill requirement of 80% fewer carbon emissions by 2050 would allow us the equivalent lifestyle of America in 1870. And no lives would be saved.
Now consider that 3.4 million people die each year from water-borne illnesses from poor drinking water supplies, according to the World Health Organization. That problem could be solved with a lot less money, and millions of lives would be saved. Consider that wealthy nations have the safest water, the fewest illnesses, the best education, and the best standard of living. Does it make more sense to make wealthy nations poorer? Or should we let economies prosper without the punitive hurdles of Cap and Trade and global governance, making poor nations richer, so that they will be able to improve the own water, education, and lifestyle?
Is global warming a hoax? You be the judge. But even if it is, that does not mean that it is not something we should consider as we plan for the future. We all want a healthy, long-lived Mother Earth. In the end, good people will do the right thing. We will continue to seek and find alternatives to a hydrocarbon-based energy system. After all, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, though not as soon as alarmists would have us believe. We agree that it is better not to pollute that to pollute. But we can transition into new sources of energy over the next century or two based on economically affordable and efficient technologies yet to be discovered or perfected. We can do it through free market innovation and incentive rather than through forced government subsidies for cronies with ineffective, overpriced technologies.
If the alarmists are wrong, we will give up our wealth, health, lifestyle, and freedom for a plot that will do nothing except turn all of the power and wealth over to an elite ruling class. If they are right, then we will still be better off with the natural and rational action of a free market and sensible planning rather than ineffectual and oppressive government edict.