Feb 28, 2014

Options Regarding Global Warming

Global warming must be real! After all we have top scientists and even failed presidential candidates who says so. With 86% of Europeans polled stating that they ‘[feel ] that humans [are ] a direct cause of climate change, and 45 percent believed it could serve as a threat to them and their relatives within their lifetimes. Sixty-eight percent indicated that they would either strongly or somewhat support limitations on their buying and behavior in support of combating global warming’ it is only a question of the time for the skeptical Americans to fall victim to more government control. Those polled said it all, they would be ‘either strongly or somewhat support[ing ] limitations on their…behavior’ (Rohinsky) in order to stop a climate threat. This statistic is quite dreadful, not out of the climate threat, but as a result of the vulnerability such beliefs have upon freedoms. By analyzing the character of past theories, scientific studies, and the present evidence for global warming, it will become obvious that global warming isn’t a definitive theory, or even a legitimate one at that, and that the sole aim of such a theory is to allow government to regulate and control every aspect of our lives.

To clearly understand that the sole aim of the idea of global warming is to control us, we should look at some of the fundamental history of the theory. On June 24th, 1972 Time Magazine ran an article titled,’ Another Ice Age. ‘ In this article is reports from the top scientists of the day including Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory stated that the coming ice age was on its way. With reports of 12% increases in ice and snow in the north of the hemisphere, temperature drops of 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1940, droughts, cold winters and a full range of climate irregularities, the conclusion was that of a global cooling.

Are You Serious?

When we jump forward a few decades, the s almost no one’s even heard of global cooling, and global warming is the last idea.

All of a sudden, global temperatures had risen, the polar ice caps were melting, and the ozone is nothing less of destroyed. Once again the evidence is lacking, a lot of it is not certain and the only solution for that’s for the fearful citizens of the planet to give up some freedoms in order to fight against pollution, CO2 emissions, destruction of resources that may combat the warming… The list doesn’t end.

Global warming has caused the melting of the polar ice caps in the Arctic and the Antarctic regions. The temperatures in these regions have risen about two to three times in comparison to the average temperatures on earth. The polar ice caps have their own important role in the maintenance of the environmental balance. If the these ice caps were to melt, islands which are below sea level may be in danger. Cities like Shanghai and the island nation of Maldives are some places which would be done at the highest risk in such a scenario.

Since the theory of global warming has seen some challenges from a growing number of scientists, the name has once again changed. Now, as even the EPA’s website lists it, it is called ‘Global Climate Change. ‘ Global cooling was proven wrong when we all realized temperatures weren’t staying cool, global warming was proven wrong when the science didn’t add up (as will be considered further in this study), so the only solution for the agencies and government to look to was to rename the same wrong theories of the last with a vague, cover all name that is ‘Global Climate Change. ‘ While it hasn’t been proven global climates are changing, it is vague enough to cover any climate pattern that may seem irregular or unexpected, when in fact chance or timing may be responsible, instead of the tragedy of climate change.

Since global cooling has now been dismissed it isn’t needed to completely debunk that form of climate change, but for global warming, an alarming number of citizens around the world believe in it. In 2007, 82% of Americans believed in global warming, rather stunning considering the fact that a growing number of scientists are voicing opposition to the theory. In 1998 Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine launched a petition for those who’ve degrees and science qualifications to sign if they’re skeptics of the idea of global warming. 32, 000 individuals with backgrounds in science signed the petition including over 9, 000 with PhD ‘s, far greater than the 2, 500 scientific reviewers the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in claiming there was a scientific consensus that global warming is real.

The consensus that all the loyal global warming activists and government officials always talk about just isn’t there. They want us to think that the debate is completed and now is the time for action, rather than continued research to actually prove it exists. With such a growing opposition, perhaps it’s important to actually examine the facts to see how the theory has come to be attacked as non-plausible and to see what doesn’t add up to cause such disbelief.

The current debate on global warming is not so much whether it exists, as it’s what’s natural and what’s not. If man didn’t exist on Planet Earth, would global warming exist? Perhaps if we all had a clearer picture about the effects on our everyday lives, we ‘d try to do more about global warming.

Diminishing glaciers, rising sea levels, dying coral reefs, migrating reduced daily temperature fluctuations, plants and animals, and more prominent and frequent ‘extreme precipitation events’ (a great amount of precipitation in a very short amount of time) are all suggested by today’s climate models as a result of global warming. The effects of global warming are accelerated and heightened by war. Should we be worried, as an escalating Middle-East war, even where not yet fought over energy or water, may give us an even shorter time than we have already to marshal resources to address the great threat of global warming.

To start off with, we should respond to the question according to whether the planet is actually warming. Warming is pretty much defined as an increase in temperature. Global of course means all across the globe. For global warming to be real, then we certainly need a warming globe. Common sense really, but then again, common sense might also indicate that the planet is cooling, not warming. For a decade now, 10 years, the planet has experienced cooling (Carter). 1998 was the last year in which warming occurred and since then, including last year the global temperatures have cooled and show no sign of warming this year either.

Temperatures since 2005 have dropped so drastically that all the warming that occurred since the 1980’s was canceled out. When a fan to the global warming cause hears these facts they commonly say,’ ‘how silly to judge climate change over such a brief period’. Yet in the next breath, the same person will tell you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming’ (Carter). They also mention that of course some cooling would have to occur when you start tallying after 1998, since 1998 was a record high year. Well they’re forgetting to mention the fact that 1998 was such a record high year because it was a El Nino year. This is a natural cycle that leads to higher temperatures. As they forget to mention the fact that, we also ignore the fact that they too use the cooling of 1965 as their base line. Something else to consider is that the warmest year in recent history in North America was in 1934.

Weather has never been constant, so of course temperatures are going to grow and lower over the years. We should consider that ‘warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the maximum phase of world industrialization, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965. ‘ Periods of warming and cooling occur naturally, it isn’t global climate change or global warming, it is called ‘weather. ‘

Global warming as a process is thought to be very devastating in terms of its impact on the climate. ‘ Climate change’ is a phrase which is often use in conjunction with global warming. It has potentially catastrophic impact on the world under which we live. ‘ Climate change’ also covers global cooling. This can also occur as a consequence of human activity and greenhouse gases, and reflects a substantial change in the world’s climate, which could change our habitat beyond recognition. This could be characterised by unusual weather patterns, resulting in more frequent natural disasters. These could in turn lead to political and social chaos in the decades and centuries to come.

As we’re deceived and said that the planet is warming, we’re also being misled on evidence to support it as well. The most common myth is that the ice caps are melting and our sea level will rise. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that there existed an increase of 9.4 %, or 390, 000 square kilometres of ice coverage in the year 2008 over 2007. Despite these facts we always see photographs of ice caps being split down the middle, suggesting out ice caps are outright being broken up and vanishing.

As ‘scientists’ parade around with their false facts of warming and melting ice caps, they can not fail to also announce how we’re destroying the coral reefs, polar bears are dying, and pursuant to a 2003 study ‘published in the journal Nature, colleagues analyzed numerous studies involving wild plant and animals for changes due to global warming. Out of the nearly 1, 500 species examined, the researchers found that about 1, 200 exhibited temperature-related changes consistent with what scientists would expect if they were being affected by global warming’ (Than). Considering the fact that scientists went into the study with assumptions on what the effects were (almost as though they were going to obtain the results they wanted no matter what they saw), they couldn’t scientifically prove what caused the so-called effects.

Everything we hear concerning global warming has to do with doom and gloom. Ice is melting, sea levels are rising, animals are dying, and life is changing, the only thing we can do to stop the chaos, is to take steps to end the warming. Despite there being no consensus and no real evidence that this warming exists, what the effects would be if it did exist or whether it could even be reversed, governments and agencies all appear to have ideas to curb our freedoms in the name of bridging the world. Why is it that every aspect of our life must be controlled? Not a single thing goes unregulated if global warming exists.

Global warming is a realistic threat to the existence of life on earth. The unprecedented rise in earth’s average temperature is a cause for worry. Moreover, the rise in temperature is expected to continue along the same rate, if some urgent steps aren’t taken immediately. Global warming has already affected the profile of climate in many places. Many of the recent floods, hurricanes and tsunamis are known to be a direct effect of this phenomenon. Global warming is also helps to the gradual rise in sea level in many places in the world. A collective effort on the share of all us is what is necessary to stop global warming.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (APA) released early in the year would give them the right to place a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions. Not excluded from this taxation of natural processes is our livestock. In New York,’ The tax for dairy cattle could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cows. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,’ the release said. ‘ Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits’ (Poor). This massive tax upon farmers would cost New York farmers alone $110 million dollars a year, effectively harming the American farm industry, giving the global competitors an upper hand and leaving American consumers having to pay the cost (Gregg). Common sense economics will show that as price goes up, demand goes down, effectively regulating how many animals farmers own, and regulating what the consumer buys.

Taxing livestock wouldn’t be the only new regulations we see. A popular idea proposed by those internal affairs of the global warming hoax is the submission of the carbon tax. ‘ A carbon tax would be given whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay it based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to consumers in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up with gas, based on the substance of fossil carbon in the fuel’ (Schlesinger). Once again, in the name of fighting global warming we have a tax that would force companies to have to increase their prices to consumers if they want to continue running business the way they were. As companies are essentially blackmailed into investing their money in ‘green technologies’ to look for ways to reduce emissions, the consumer is left to foot the bill. This tax is nothing but telling companies what to invest in or telling them they must raise the price upon the consumer. It is a regulative policy that strips away freedoms from investors, consumers and companies to supposedly curb the carbon emissions that is causing a warming that hasn’t even been proven to exist.

Global warming although never proven, is already gaining land in the taxation side of regulation. The regulation won’t end there though. In California all new car models as of 2009 must display a label that states its ‘global warming score. ‘ While lawmakers claim it is suppose to be about public awareness, ‘a law endorsed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations’ (Greenbiz). The car regulation isn’t ending with just labeling society and adding expenses, in 2002 California led the way with forcing companies to produce certain cars. Assembly Bill 1493 is currently facing legal challenges from auto makers who’re quite honestly, not satisfied with having the freedom to manufacture cars of their choosing removed. They are now being legally forced to make cars that ‘reduce global warming emissions’ (California Clean Car Campaign) instead of making cars that consumers demand as the free market determines. The free market deciding how cars should be done makes sense, the people want it, they demand it. California, along with other states now considering such laws, have decided to strip away the free out of market and is now even regulating what type of car we drive.

To many paying a few extra dollars or driving a certain car isn’t a big deal as long as we combat global warming. Those ones usually don’t realize to what extent the regulation can go though. If the planet is in trouble, with ecosystems out of order, food supply being cut off, climate irregular, and entire cities vanishing beneath the rising water, there’s nothing that could be said to avoid the government and their agencies from regulating other parts of our life too in order to save us from ourselves. Karen Coshof, producer of’ The Great Warming,’ said in a Cybercast News Service interview,’ Population is the basic problem-the catalyst for [global warming ]’ (Randall). Now, what is the way to battle the ‘underlying problem? ‘ The answer would be population control. Most are offended when they hear of the Chinese laws setting limits on children for families, with heavy taxation and fines for having too many children, but yet sections of the global warming activists in America advocate population control, and we can only ask ourselves how soon it will be before legislation is put up to a vote as well.

One of the most famous regulative policies concerning global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. ‘ The protocol’s implementation will require such heavy-handed regulation that Andrei Illarionov, the senior economic advisor to President Vladimir Putin who opposed Russia’s ratification of Kyoto, sees it as a recrudescence of the command economy. Appealing last week to Mr Blair to listen more to informed sceptics, he asked :’ Have there been any international agreements to limit economic development and development before Kyoto? Yes, there were two: Communism and Nazism. ‘ Many economists have determined that Kyoto would cost America billions of dollars, as a question of fact. Japan alone would be out $500 billion to cut emissions 12 times (only once) (Johnson). Through regulative policies that would determine what can and can only be produced, how it can and can only be produced, what jobs we can and can only have, what companies can and can not succeed, what investors lose or gain, it is comforting to know that Kyoto would have only reduced global temperatures by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. So much regulation to control global warming, and like the presence of global warming, the results of Kyoto will just not exist.

We have been raised to believe in global warming. It is in out schools, media, movies, and our professors love to espouse it. They would have us believe that global warming is, in fact, a scientific consensus, all while constantly changing the name of the climate theory, but yet a growing number of skeptics are speaking out and the evidence to sustain the so-called warming is just not there. When you combine that with the fact that everything about the theory of global warming just coincidently allows the government and other agencies to control and regulate all areas of our life, you have the operation of a fraud.

If global warming it to exist in our mind, they can raise our taxes, tell us what animals to own, raise prices on livestock, rise the prices of consumer goods, tell us what industries succeed or fail, determine what investments make money or not, regulate what we drive and take away companies freedom to manufacture based upon the free market, and even go as far as regulate our breeding. Not a single aspect of our life will be spared from regulation in some manner. We as a society have already said that we would be ready to give up our freedoms to fight global warming if it threatened us. They already have us confident that it exists, now the only thing left is owned by the threat to be highlighted. The science and history is against global warming, giving us citizens a wish that the world will open their eyes and see global warming as a regulative fraud.

Leave a comment