Global Warming — Are We Safe?

Chewy YouyShould we fear global warming or
those who blame us for it?

We may be in a climatic optimum. That means historically the climate was worse. It can get a lot worse. The Holocene Climate Optimum (aka the Hypsithermal, the Altithermal, the Climatic Optimum, the Holocene Optimum, the Holocene Thermal Maximum or simply, the Holocene) was much like modern weather and perhaps a bit warmer (See—e.g., ).

From what we know the Holocene lasted about 3500 to 4000 years before commencing a million-year long cooling trend. So that is 7500 to 9000 years of the good, the bad and the ugly of climate. The Industrial Revolution has of course had zero climatic influence on Earth’s torrid, blizzardy and barren cold weather over the thousands of years since the beginning of the Holocene.

“What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate [and] … the climate has been changing constantly… What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change.” ~Jane Francis

A belief that humans cause global warming is a belief that modernity condemns humanity. The Left wanted all of us Americans to adopt the beliefs and solutions of the UN and just get along with the program of dismantling the country but at the first big meeting in Kyoto, President George Bush said, ‘Nyet’ to the UN and the Eurocommies. Good decision?

“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. ” ~Dr. S. Fred Singer

Should all of us pull plastic bags over our faces like members of the Heaven’s Gate Cult and go to sleep forever on the eternal flight to Leftist Utopia located on back side of the Comet Hale-Bopp? Would that really change the weather and by extension the world’s climate?

“You only have to look at the temperature record for the last seven years, the CO2 rising at half the rate they predicted it to rise. That alone requires all their temperature forecasts to 2100 to be halved.

“If you do this, I think you will be doing it alone. America will be damaging her own economy uniquely, and she will be transferring her jobs and her industries to countries such as China, Russia, Indonesia, India, and Brazil, where they do not control emissions and pollution in the way that you do, where their emissions per unit of production are considerably higher than yours, and the net effect of this scheme will be directly counter to its intention, because you will actually increase worldwide carbon emissions by shipping your economic carbon emissions in your manufacturers overseas, with the consequence that the emissions will actually increase worldwide.

“That is not what you intend. I hope therefore it is not what you will do.”

Lord Monckton (Addressing the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, March 12, 2009)

It will never make sense to Leftists that being independent of foreign energy is better than being dependent on politicians. Spinning fears about global warming was necessary to float the Left’s global “cap and trade” scheme to control the worldwide production of energy. But talking about “cap and trade” is no longer helpful to the Left so they have gone back to their old environmental message of equating carbon dioxide to poison.

Obama and the the Democrats are simply playing word games because words are their only product. They want to run from the words “cap and trade” so Obama now calls humanity’s carbon dioxide, “carbon pollution.” The new word pollution is same as the old word, back when the exploitative use by the Left of the environmentalism meme followed the curve from valid concerns to vapid tweets about vulnerable polar bears dying and sordid commercials from anti-smoking marketers showing polar bears falling from the sky, careening off and leaving streaks of blood on NY skyscrapers as they plummet in a heap onto asphalt streets.

As Obama lectured us a few days ago, “but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want – pollution that is contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.” Obama was given a Nobel to say things like that. Everyone knows what Obama calls carbon pollution is really nothing more than  CO2 and water.

If not Al Gore, who better than Obama (Eurocommies wanted him for our president) — a president who desperately seeks a diversion from mushrooming government scandals and malfeasance — to deliver a sermon. The message is that we must empower radical environmentalism and the Climatists’ agenda to save the planet? Just like the Politburo of Russia. Western schoolteachers believe it is their duty to save the world by eliminating Americanism. For the Left it’s simple:

• the socialists’ collectivism versus the Founders’ individualism;
• government programs versus free enterprise;
• Utopianism and hypocrisy versus self-actualization and existentialism; and,
• personal helplessness versus rational self-interest.

“If you understand the dominant philosophy
of a society, you can predict its course.” ~Ayn Rand

Sure, sure we know Obama stopped the seas from rising. And that is truly amazing when you consider Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Obama “the most liberal, most incompetent president in the White House since Jimmy Carter.” We can also rename global warming. It should be, the politician Obama who believes in more taxes (especially a national energy tax) versus Richard Feynman who believes in the scientific method. Obama does not care about costs or benefits and is contemptuous of skeptics. Obama says, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.” Feynman believes all scientists should be skeptics.

Feinman says, Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as follows:

When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, “How does science show it-how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?” Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at. . I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television words, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

Climatists have become nothing more than propagandists and ad hom attack dogs for the Left’s political machine. Those with common sense and who actually work for a living — providing goods and services society really wants and is willing to pay for — have become the Left’s enemy: the new Jews of liberal fascists.

Withal, even the BBC managed to swallow a truth pill and admitted back in 2009 that, “Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade.” We are at 16 years now, going on 20, with no end to the cooling in sight. Something may be rotten in the UN but the globe is just fine. It’s not the fingerprints of humanity all over the global thermostat. Government funding for concern about CO2 has become the Leftist Relief Act. The latest envirochondria about about humanity’s CO2 is smellier than rubber tires on a beach fire. Humanity needs more energy not more hot air.

Energy demand will grow, as it should, to allow these people to experience the advances in health and quality of life that we enjoy. They are far more vulnerable to the impacts of poverty, water pollution, and political strife than whatever the climate does.  I simply close with a plea, please remember the needs and aspirations of the poorest among us when energy policy is made. Thank you very much. ~ Dr. John R. Christy

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.