Finding a resonant theme for political action …
First, there was global cooling and the prescription was a public policy change to control carbon dioxide to mitigate the potential triggering of a mini-ice age.
Then came global warming and the prescription was a public policy change to control carbon dioxide to mitigate the potential triggering of a runaway heat wave.
Then came the revelations that the climate models, upon which the global mean temperature was being calculated, failed to correctly account for a decade-long cooling trend. The prescription was to discontinue the use of the term “global warming” and to refer to the climate phenomenon as “global climate change.” Of course, the prescription to mitigate the effects of global climate change was to change public policy to control carbon dioxide to mitigate the potential triggering of any radical climate change.
Now comes the revelations that the science is not settled, there is much that is unknown, the climate models do not reflect the underlying physical phenomenon without tweaking the assumptions, input data and the programs themselves. That a few number of scientists who have been the recipients of personal and professional benefits have apparently manipulated not only the computer programs and the input data – but the very sanctity of the peer-review process which is designed to keep scientific work transparent and scientists accountable for their findings.
Now that significant questions about the methodology, data and honesty of the work has been question, the prescription is to, once again, rename the cause from “global climate change” to “global climate disruptions.” Studying the impact of global climate on human populations. Of course, the prescription to mitigate the effects of global climate disruptions is to change public policy to control carbon dioxide to mitigate the pain and suffering of human populations exposed to climate change.
Why carbon dioxide?
The rationale that carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that most affects the climate is necessary because controlling carbon dioxide leads the politicians and public policy makers to control the entire energy production and usage process in the United States and elsewhere in the world. And thus control the economies of nations. Perhaps to promote the goal of those environmentalists who want to use climate as a weapon against their enemies or those who believe that people are the problem – and population control is the real goal to eliminating man’s evil influence on Mother Earth.
The big lie …
The underlying assumption that global weather climate changes are significantly influenced by man’s post-industrial age activities is demonstrably false.
One, carbon dioxide levels have been both significantly lower and significantly higher in times prior to man’s influence.
Two, global mean temperatures have been significantly higher and significantly lower in times prior to man’s influence.
Three, it appears that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags the rise in temperatures by 600 –1000 years depending on the timeframe and dataset used. Something that can be easily explained by the warming of oceans when warmer oceans give off dissolved carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much as a cold been emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a warm day.
Four, carbon dioxide’s action on the atmosphere is relatively insignificant when one considers that the greenhouse gas with the most significant effect is water vapor. Consider nature’s feedback loop: the the oceans warm, water enters the atmosphere by evaporation. Clouds form and cool the underlying ocean. The clouds reach a saturation point and the resulting precipitation is returned to the oceans where the process repeats itself. Nature is neat, self-regulating and man goes along for the ride. And one of the nifty facts is that the relationship between dissolved carbon dioxide and atmospheric carbon dioxide is more or less constant. Another self-regulating feedback loop.
Five, the gross actions of the Sun’s variable output, the Earth’s orbital position in relation to the Sun, the Earth’s precession and rotational dynamics, oceanic deep currents, plate tectonics and volcanic activities, far outweigh man’s puny influence on our climate.
Truth-be-told, while scientists know that climate change is cyclical, they do not know its exact periodicity of the cycle nor the amplitude of the maximum and minimum temperature change. These scientists cannot tell you the optimum global mean temperature and if any of man’s effort to modify the global climate can ever be measured against the natural variability of nature’s climate.
The story that remains untold …
The climate alarmists dishonestly cite the catastrophic consequences of a rise in carbon dioxide on the climate, but refuse to promote the idea that a slight increase in global temperature or an increase in carbon dioxide could have a beneficial effect on the Earth – and man. Improving plant growth, producing greater food sources and reducing the deaths which are attributable to colder weather. Can you say “fair and balanced” reporting?
About those pesky people …
Since the dawn of man’s appearance on Earth, he has been subject to the vagaries of nature. Moving towards more abundant natural resources like water and food – and towards more sheltered areas in which to live. Man adapted to his environment by building irrigation canals, improving growing methods and by building stronger shelters to protect against the elements. And man accepted when nature revolted resulting in a significant loss of life.
One needs to look to Haiti to see that public policy might be better served by reducing the corruption in politics and the special interests which prey on the public’s welfare – instead building better shelters in more protected areas. It is sheer idiocy to rebuilding the New Orleans which remains below sea level in favor of pursuing common sense and moving to higher ground. Historic stupidity does not have to be perpetuated by politicians who are interested only in gaining and maintaining public office for their personal benefit and that of their special interest supporters.
Bottom line …
In the final analysis, the environmentalists have been infiltrated by the socialists, communists and anarchists who see global climate change as a means to pursuing their toxic political philosophies – based on central planning, controlled wealth distribution and the rise of oligarchs and czars.
We need to purge the government of the ideologues which will use any excuse to consolidate their power, enlarge the size of government, raise taxes and curtail God-given freedoms such as the right to self-defense. Politicians who see dissent and label it subversive.
We are now at the real tipping point, where our corrupt and complacent politicians represent a clear and present danger to ourselves, our families and our nation. We must remove all of the democrats and their RINO (Republican In Name Only – think John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.) fellow travelers. Time to take back OUR government. Vote in 2010 – remove all incumbents and replace them with conservatives. Where it is not possible to remove a toxic Administration, restore the constitutional checks and balances envisioned by our forefathers, by voting for conservatives of the opposite party. Unlike global climate change , we the people have little time to alter our political world before we face truly catastrophic political consequences.
Want to disprove what I say or just argue. I am here – awaiting your response.
-- steve
Comments