Watching the panel discussion about Climategate on Fox News Sunday today I was dismayed by how the debate was framed. It was also apparent to me that those present were either willfully ignorant of known facts or were misinformed. These are reasonably intelligent people so if they are unclear about the significance of the entire “global warming” agenda, then certainly others are as well. So let’s recap and breakdown the subject into its component parts.
1) The primary question: Is the planet Earth undergoing a generalized warming trend and, if so, is the trend a cycle measurable in short time periods such as decades or one that has longer and more lasting effects measurable in centuries?
Both historical and modern technological references indicate that, yes, the earth is in fact in a long term warming cycle. I would suggest that readers research the temperature time line from the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) through the Little Ice Age (LIA) on to the present day. Please bear in mind that any stated “measurements” taken prior to the 19th century should be taken as suspect in their accuracy. Especially when compared against modern measurements made with modern technology (also perhaps, suspect). In this respect historical records are a better indication. However, they do not lend themselves to being plotted on a graph or chart and certainly cannot be plugged into a computer program.
2) Should any such warming be considered alarming, as well as, what is the right temperature for Earth?
Here we get into the matter of perception. The farmers on Greenland were much dismayed as the overall temperatures lessened and their crops ceased to be with the advancement of the LIA. The vineyards in England suffered the same fate. So for them, cooling was not a good thing. Today, milder winters in some parts the U.S. mean lower home heating costs and better travel conditions in winter. Certainly a good thing.
This, of course, is taking a parochial view of temperature. Humans living in other than the continental United States will have their own perception of ideal weather. In this regard warmer is generally to be preferred over colder if for no other reason than crop production and the ability to feed themselves. It is really a matter of personal preference and need.
Being too hot can be harmful in the extreme. Which leads to the third point.
3) Casting aside the dramatic claims of a parched Earth or New York City being inundated with sea water promoted by Al Gore and a number of alarmist movies. Would the return to temperatures such as those experienced during the MWP be a bad thing?
My personal belief is no. Not only is warmer generally a good thing, but modern man now has ways to counter the negative effects of too much warmth for those areas of the globe where high temperatures may reach the deadly range. Goodness. The country of Dubai, in heart of the Middle East, now has a completely enclosed ski resort! Try that in the Middle Ages.
This leads to the following observation.
4) Climate is ever changing. There is no “right” temperature and even if there were it would eventually change anyway. This is because the Earth, the oceans, the sky and the Sun are all working in an interactive manner to affect our climate. To this day no one, repeat, NO ONE, has yet figured out how this interaction works! We do know that it has been going on since the formation of the planet and will go on until at some point the planet ceases to exist. Ask any dinosaur if you doubt me.
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that mankind has absolutely no control of the Earth’s overall climate! Man can and does affect localized conditions. Cut down enough shade trees and cover the area with asphalt and you will create a local hot spot. This should never be confused with man controlling the climate of the planet or causing “climate change”.
Which brings us to the matter of anthropomorphic (man-made) climate change and the UN/Kyoto/IPCC call for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions in order to save the planet.
5) Carbon Emissions. IF man is capable of affecting the global climate, and IF it can be proven that our industrialization is releasing excessive CO2 into the atmosphere, and IF it can shown that this amount of CO2 is responsible for an increase in global temperature, then we - the citizens of the world - have a duty to control and regulate these emissions. That is the position taken by those promoting, and promoting is the operative word, a need to reduce carbon dioxide presence in the air.
Wow. Where to begin. That sure is a lot of “ifs” and requires a judgment as to what is excessive and what part of the atmosphere our CO2 emissions consist of and can therefore be regulated. It leads to the fact that carbon emissions and the regulation of them is an AGENDA.
6) Agenda. The United Nations has for most of its existence sought to create a world government. Various reasons and ideologies are behind this goal, but it is the goal never the less. Over the decades a number of ideas were advanced in the hope of convincing governments to yield to UN control. During the Cold War they pinned their hopes on the fear of nuclear war and global annihilation. This failed with the fall of the Soviet Union.
Enter Maurice Strong and other members of the UN’s Commission on Global Governance, which produced a report which included the following, “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
UN higher ups and others seeking a New World Order – under UN control, of course – had what appeared to be a “Eureka Moment”. Certainly climate affects every nation on Earth and if they could show that a scheme for control of the climate was a matter of life and death for all peoples it would be game-set-match and the UN would achieve its long sought goal.
In the 70s alarmists had tried this approach claiming that the Earth was about to enter a new Ice Age. This idea was checkmated by a general warming trend which began in the 80s. In an adroit pirouette the scare of catastrophic heating of the Earth was advanced. Well funded research was announced and scientists were encouraged to look for causation for any rise in temperatures as well as to document this phenomenon.
7) The entry of pseudo-science. Over the next generation report after report was released demonstrating; a) the Earth was indeed warming, and b) the cause was man’s release into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide as a result of burning carbon based fuels (coal, oil, wood, natural gas, etc.). As these reports were released so too was the funding for more such “research”. This created what can only be called a “climate change industry”. All that was needed to get into the game; i.e. the funding, was to request research grants for exploring the effect of CO2 on man-made global warming. There were no grants for those demonstrating that man had no effect on the climate or that CO2 was not a factor. Cash hungry colleges, universities and academics the world over applied for and received millions of dollars to study climate change.
Al Gore made a movie and gave well-paid lectures promoting an “Inconvenient Truth”. He then quietly invested his new found wealth into various “green” enterprises. Major companies saw the light and invested in green technology, they wanted to get into the game as well. They began lobbying for grants and subsidies from the U.S. taxpayer to further these aims. The liberal media, always on the side of big government, trumpeted the reports and furthered the scare mongering.
Science books used in the public schools preached global warming as fact not theory and children were indoctrinated in the “green” ideology. Their parents were shamed into going along with the agenda. For the one-worlders things were really cooking along. Governments were passing green legislation and buying into carbon footprints and carbon credits. The day of a world-wide treaty regulating, and taxing, CO2 emissions was on the foreseeable horizon.
8) The “deniers”. Meanwhile, others were a bit more skeptical of these reports. Scientists around the world were asking for the data used to justify the claims and access to the computer models which made the dire predictions. Some did their own original research and produced results contrary to those in the climate change industry. Some politicians questioned the rationale for dismantling the economy and taxing an already strained middle class for the sake of a minor reduction in CO2 release that would admittedly have a negligible effect on the atmosphere and therefore the climate.
These people were pounced upon. Rather than accept as part of the scientific method of validating a proposed theory via review of the data, the climate change industry refused access to important information. They were vilified and called “deniers”. Equated with those that denied the existence of the Holocaust. Al Gore refused on numerous occasions to debate anyone that disagreed with his claims. According the major media and proponents of draconian legislative schemes the science was “settled”. Major “carbon credit” and “cap and trade(tax)” legislation was enacted in the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a huge cap-n-tax plan by a margin of one vote and sent it to the U.S. Senate. The media aided and abetted those that wanted to silence opposition to climate change agenda.
9) Enough! Climategate. Just weeks before a scheduled conference in Copenhagen to advance a world-wide treaty that would include huge transfers of money to select countries and taxes (to be received by the UN) to be levied on the major industrial nations (the ones using the most carbon based fuels), a whistleblower dropped an academic stink bomb on the entire scheme.
This was not the illegal work of a hacker. No. Whoever released the emails and data and computer programs to the Internet had to have been an insider that had seen enough and wanted to throw a flag on the play. Over 60 megabytes of information was placed where anyone with access to the Internet could retrieve and review the data. A hacker would have had no idea what to include in the data dump and what to exclude – personal emails and trivial chit chat among researchers. A conscience is a wonderful thing.
10) Stop. Breathe. Do over. While the MSM and many in congress are still in abject refusal stage, sanity is being displayed bit by bit. Australia just rejected its version of cap-n-tax and the Brits are wondering if they have been diddled. Members of the U.S. House are calling for investigations and a time-out on any further legislation regarding CO2.
Before any nation willingly destroys its economy over claims that are now fully discredited concerning the climate, it must stop and rethink the matter. Rational people need to come to their senses and recognize what this entire episode was all about in the first place. See item 6 above.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” -MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science
Remember too, this has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution. No one wants dirty or dangerous air. The media loves to show a picture of a cooling tower spewing clouds of steam (that’s water vapor, folks) into the air as a backdrop to a “report” condemning our use of carbon based fuel. This is propagandizing sleight of hand.
Conclusion
Powerful forces are hard at work attempting to mitigate the damage Climategate has done to the climate change industry and the world government plans of the UN and its acolytes. Major businesses are basing their future profitability on grants, subsidies and contracts for “green” products and services. Colleges and universities are at risk of losing millions of dollars in grants. Major media, already in disrepute, is to be seen as a flack for big government schemers.
Meanwhile, the producers of the energy we need today and for the immediate future are left in limbo unable to proceed and create the jobs and electricity our nation needs and will have a need for more of in the coming years.
Only a loud and consistent cry from the public will defeat those that want to shackle our nation and feed into the world government plans of the one-worlders. This can only be accomplished by spreading the facts to all and bypassing the reluctant media and the left-wing socialists that see climate change as a stepping stone to greater government intrusion into our lives.
Donald Holtzinger
http://tysknews.com/
more...
more... 
YourImageDoctors
